TAMARA GRDZELIDZE AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PANORTHODOX COUNCIL OF CRETE. AN INTERVIEW TO SERGEI CHAPNIN

Tamara Grdzelidze for Sergei Chapnin
Question: How do you assess the results of the Pan-Orthodox Council in general? Do they coincide with your expectations?

Needless to say that the council, at the end, could not meet initial expectations we all had, until it became clear that four autocephalous churches were not going to Crete. Post factum, however, I was nicely surprised by its outcome, by the orthodox mobilization to overcome the difficult situation and maintain a constructive conversation.

 Question: How do you feel about the documents of the Council? Do you agree that they provide an adequate response to the challenges of the modern world? Please provide specific examples.

I am sure it is not going to surprise you if I say that I found the documents poor and inadequate. However, taking into consideration the background, more than 50 years of preparations to summon a pan-orthodox council and a series of hindrances on its way, I take down my criteria and understand the fellow Orthodox for such a choice. I will mention one inadequacy in the documents which I noted out in my recent presentation at conference on Ecclesiology and A Digital Age. Documents say nothing about a very important aspect of our life today – technologies and social media, both having so much to do with life in the Church. In particular I mean document on the Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World. I could make a list of burning issues missing in the documents…

 Question: How do you assess the role of your local Church in the preparation process and during the Council: was it constructive? What specific contributions were made? If there are examples, please provide.

This is a very difficult question for me, although I understand that it is a standard question posed to all. In the process of preparation the Orthodox Church of Georgia acted responsibly and adequately and tried to contribute to amendments of some documents. Whether their proposals were right or wrong this is another matter. I am noting their full participation in the preparation process. Certainly, each church participated according to one’s own capacity and resources. However, at the end they did not go to Crete. The non-participation in the Holy and great Council raised a big question mark about their responsible and constructive participation in the preparation process.

The synod of the Church of Georgia aimed at introducing changes in a couple of documents, one of them on Marriage. I think, we are the only church among the other autocephalous churches rejecting mixed marriages. I have not done a special survey but I know that practice of rebaptism is not common in other local churches. In Georgia it is a must against receiving Christians from other churches into the Orthodox Church.

For me it is a serious theological error but the Church of Georgia does not agree with me, or, indeed, with the other Orthodox. 

Question: In the last days before the Council the refusal four churches questioned the very possibility of the Council, however it was held. Do you personally think it was anyway Pan-Orthodox and why?

There is no straightforward answer to your question. I am, indeed, in agreement with the Orthodox who think that the Holy and Great Council, according to the signed agreement from the autocephalous churches in January 2016, took place in Crete. However, the council meant to be a binding event and function as a major instrument for reception. How is it going to happen? 

 Question: How do you assess the status of Pan-Orthodox cooperation after the Council? Some speak of a crisis of conciliarity. Do you agree with this assessment? If so, what can be the way out of the crisis?

Partly I answered your question about the critical situation the autocephalous Orthodox Churches found themselves this summer. In my view, even the Antioch’s jurisdictional problem with Jerusalem was not good enough to withdraw from the council, threatening by their withdrawal the spirit of the Orthodox Unity. In wonder, how the autocephalous churches are going to find a way out of this awkward situation? I am curious and look forward to see Next steps taken by the Orthodox Church (I mean it, the Church) for the sake of unity.

Question: How can we shape the Pan-Orthodox cooperation today? What kind of questions can and should be dealt with together?

How the churches must continue collaboration under the given circumstances? Well, ‘a million dollar question’ (T.G: please, find a Russian idiom for this expression  ) .

All challenges the people of God face today must be discussed conciliary by the Orthodox. It is possible that local churches apply some of the decisions differently but the teaching of the Orthodox Church must reflect conciliary on fundamental issues of today’s world and seek binding decisions. We know that the local churches are not ready at present to commit themselves to such an ambitious task. My hope was that all 14 churches would sit down together in Crete to start a serious conversation on the nature of challenges the Christians face today. Alas, even that has become problematic this summer. Let us hope that next spring is not too far away…

I apologize to pose questions myself instead of answering your questions.

* * *

Tamara Grdzelidze,
D.Phil. (University of Oxford), Ph.D. (Tbilisi State University), Doctor honirs causa (University of Bern)
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Georgia to the Holy See
and the Sovereign Order of Malta
tgrdzelidze@mfa.gov.ge
www.vatican.mfa.gov.ge

Until becoming Ambassador to the Holy See (September 2014) and the Sovereign Order of Malta (December 2014) worked as orthodox theologian at the World Council of Churches, 2001 – 2013 (Geneva, Switzerland) at the Secretariat on Faith and Order Commission for promotion of Christian unity. In Georgia she did research in Georgian Hagiography at Shota Rustaveli Institute of Georgian Literature and taught Georgian language and literature at school. She published widely on Georgian hagiography, Georgian church history, orthodoxy and the contemporary world, ecclesiology, hermeneutics, inter-confessional dialogue and on the current matters of the Holy See.