Mark Woods, Christian Today
Eastern Orthodox Churches are gathering shortly in Crete for a highly
significant 'Holy and Great Council' aimed at ironing out knotty
problems that have accumulated over the last few centuries.
It begins on
Saturday and supporters hope it will be something like the Second
Vatican Council that blew away the cobwebs from the Roman Catholic
Church and brought it into the 20th century (it started in 1962).
However, the 'Pan-Orthodox Council' – it means all the Orthodox Churches
– has run into problems. Several have said they won't be coming after
all, and it looks as though it will be a bit of a damp squib.
I thought there was only one Orthodox Church, like the Roman Catholic Church.
It would certainly make life easier. No; there are 14
'autocephalous', self-governing Churches based on national boundaries or
historical precedent. There are also some 'autonomous' Churches that
are linked to a parent Church but run themselves. Orthodoxy is a
tradition rooted in the Eastern, Greek tradition of the early Church
Fathers, whereas Roman Catholicism looked to the West. Both accept the
historical creeds of the Church, but they have developed in different
ways.
And the Pan-Orthodox Council was designed to do what?
It was hoped that all the Orthodox Churches would come to a common mind on six contentious areas:
the mission of the Orthodox Church in today's world, the Orthodox
Diaspora, autonomy and how it is proclaimed, the sacrament of marriage
and its impediments, the importance of fasting and the relations of the
Orthodox Church with the rest of the world.
It's hard to see what could go wrong with all that.
They are all very complicated issues involving a huge amount of
Church politicking. One of the main problems is that there is a
fundamentalist wing in Orthodoxy that sees itself as being in a culture
war with liberals, not just in society but in theological terms as well.
So the preparatory document on the Church's mission in the world has a
bit about peace and social justice, which is too liberal for some; and
it talks about "inter-Christian cooperation", which too liberal for
others. The 'Diaspora' is a sore point, too: it refers to Orthodox
Christians living in places where there isn't really an Orthodox Church.
So which Church has authority over them? Marriage is another
difficulty; the preparatory document isn't remotely liberal on same-sex
marriage, but some think it is. And several Churches think the council
will give away too much to other Christian communions, which they don't
think are Churches at all.
But surely all this could have been foreseen?
You'd think so. But this council has been a long time in the
preparation, and some events have moved quite quickly. For instance,
Russia's annexation of Crimea and incursion into Ukraine has outraged
Ukrainians and helped split the Orthodox Church there. And the meeting
between Russia's Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis in Havana infuriated
Russian conservatives, who accused him of selling out.
Are there other pressure points?
Qatar is one. Antioch and Jerusalem are at loggerheads because
Antioch thinks it has jurisdiction over Qatar and the Qataris have given
permission to a cleric from Jerusalem to build a church there. Another
is the desire of the Bulgarian Church to get back the bones of King
Samuel, who died in 1014. They are a present in a Greek museum, and the
Greeks say they aren't giving them back. Then there's a row between the
Serbian and Romanian Churches. There's a Romanian minority in Eastern
Serbia, and the Romanians send their priests to minister to them; the
Serbs say they will break communion with the Romanian Church unless they
stop.
What next, an argument about the seating plan?
Funny you should mention that. At the moment there are two possible
seating plans for the 500 participants. One emphasises the equality of
all the Churches, and is the one preferred by Russia. The other
emphasises the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch, based in Istanbul,
the former capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. It's a very big issue
for some Churches. And though the Ecumenical Patriarch is first in
prestige among Orthodox Churches, it's tiny. The Russian Orthodox Church
has many times its numbers and much more influence.
But presumably all this was known when it was decided to hold the council?
Yes, and perhaps in retrospect it was the triumph of hope over
experience. But it looks as though these Churches want to use the
council to make a point about their own local difficulties rather than
putting them on one side for the greater good. The latest Church to
announce its non-participation is the Georgian Church, joining the
Bulgarians, Antiochenes and Serbs. Russia is still thinking about it.
Whatever happens, it will not have the status of a true ecumenical
council and Orthodox Churches will not be bound by what it says. It may
be downgraded to a consultative meeting aimed at holding talks about
talks.
Does this matter to anyone who isn't an Orthodox Christian?
Yes, it does, for three reasons. First, we are all members of one
body, and these turf wars don't do the Church as a whole any credit.
Second, in some cases religion is being co-opted for nationalistic
purposes at just the time it's needed to be a voice for peace. And
third, when there there is a crying need for Churches to make themselves
fit for purpose in the 21st century, this looks like an opportunity
missed. Many of those involved in planning for this council are men of
huge wisdom, virtue and insight. We should pray that their voices
prevail, even at the last minute.