by Edith M. Humphrey, Very Rev. Maxym Lysack, Bradley Nassif, Rev. Dr. Anthony Roeber, and Rev. Dr. Theodore Stylianopoulos
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 is William F. Orr Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.Very Rev. Maxym Lysack is priest of Christ the Saviour Orthodox Church, a parish of the Carpatho-Russian Diocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ottawa, Ontario.
Bradley Nassif is Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at North Park University in Chicago.
Rev. Dr. Anthony Roeber is is attached clergy at St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church in Johnstown, PA and Professor of Early Modern History & Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University.
Rev. Dr. Theodore Stylianopoulos is Professor of New Testament Emeritus at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology.
This essay was sponsored by the Orthodox Theological Society in America’s Special Project on the Holy and Great Council and published by the Orthodox Christian Studies Center of Fordham University.