(RNS) The Great and Holy Council of the Eastern Orthodox churches
concluded Sunday (June 26). There was no shortage of controversy leading
up to the council. The churches of Bulgaria, Russia and Georgia didn’t
attend.
The Ukrainian Church asked for independence from the Russian
Church. Many wondered if the council’s decisions would be valid.
In the end, cooler and more charitable heads prevailed.
This, according to the spokesperson for the Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew, the Rev. John Chryssavgis, whom I was fortunate enough to
interview. Chryssavgis did his doctoral studies at Oxford in 1983, and
in 1995 he moved to Boston and became a professor at the Holy Cross
School of Theology. The interview has been edited for length and
clarity.
Q: For those unfamiliar, would you describe the Holy and Great Council?
A: The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church was conceived
almost 100 years ago, while preparations for its convocation began about
60 years ago. Its purpose was to bring together the 14 autocephalous
(self-ruling) Orthodox churches together to present a more credible
message and unified voice in response to contemporary global challenges.
Q: How historically rare is such a council?
A: In the history of the church, there has never been such a
comprehensive and representative assembly of Orthodox churches and
bishops. In the first millennium, there were only five churches (the
ancient patriarchates, including Rome), which were controlled by an
emperor that convened and underwrote (though he did not chair) such
councils, while also imposing their decisions throughout the empire.
Today, there are 14 churches. Almost all of them (with the exception
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) are national churches, with sometimes
very narrow ethnic concerns. All of them were isolated for a number of
decades, and even centuries, as a result of social and political
upheavals.
Q: Can you give us some highlights or stories from the council?
A: For me, the most obvious highlight was observing the bishops (25
from each church) speaking openly and honestly to one another, learning
about their respective circumstances and contexts. On several occasions,
I heard bishops saying: “I had no idea this was happening in Nigeria
(or Albania, or Poland).”
One consequence of the walls of estrangement that existed between the
various churches was that each of them developed — or responded to the
modern demands of the West — at a different pace. Where, for example, we
are quite accustomed to seeing images of Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew working closely with the pope for many years, other churches
(such as Bulgaria and Georgia) have struggled to communicate or
cooperate with any Christian church whatsoever, withdrawing from the
World Council of Churches in recent years. The same is true of the
Patriarchate of Moscow, whose primate Patriarch Kirill met with Pope
Francis earlier this year, only to return to a church protesting (even
threatening schism) over his “heretical” flirting with the Vatican.
So this sort of uneven evolution required a council to establish some fundamental guidelines for the Orthodox Churches.
Q: I heard there was debate about the legitimacy of the council from a small minority of Orthodox Churches. What is your take on this debate?
A: There was much debate — even controversy — until the opening of
the council. But then, as if the miracle of Pentecost was replaying
before our eyes, the bishops began to speak; and they spoke in new
tongues — by which I mean the language of humility and reconciliation,
of charity and generosity. Bishops who arrived at the council were able
to dialogue and debate with civility and compassion.
The experience was like watching a child take its first steps. It may
look awkward and even graceless; those watching may fear that the child
could falter or fall. But then, once the child walks, there is
admiration, even jubilation and gratitude.
The council was a first step in an unprecedented journey of
rediscovering the conciliar process in the church. Councils are part of
the Orthodox Church’s DNA; but we must relearn to practice what we
preach.
There were various explanations offered by the churches that were
absent. I respect not only their right but also their reasons, which
surely stem from internal issues and pressures within their communities.
However, my regret is that the leaders of these churches withheld their
faithful from being a part of a consequential and even sacred moment in
the history of our church.
The council was the first council of the 21st century.
There will no doubt be more opportunities for such councils, and
hopefully these will not take as long to prepare and organize.
Thankfully, however, councils have now been revitalized and
re-institutionalized in the life and order of the Orthodox Church.
(Charles C. Camosy is associate professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University)