.png "English"){kind=small}
An answer of an Orthodox missiologist to the question
“Stolen Churches” or “Bridges to Orthodoxy”?
Vladimir Fedorov
It is the Day of Resurrection, let us be radiant for the feast, and let us embrace one another. Let us say, Brethren, even to them that hate us, let us forgive all things on the
Resurrection, and thus let us cry out:
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in
the tombs bestowing life.
Paschal matin
The discourse and
analysis we need to answer the question “Stolen Churches” or “Bridges to
Orthodoxy” should be not only ecclesiological, but probably above all,
missiological. It is worth turning our eyes to the past to qualify the legal,
moral and ecclesiastical and political factors that determined the Churches
divisions and conflicts. However, it is indisputable that the immediate problem
is to look into the future and seek for a path to reconciliation. This
is a mission of the Church. Needless to say that the Mission of the Church
is multi-vector and multifaceted. Both in the East and in the West reflections
on the Mission of the Church formed in the twentieth century a special
theological discipline, missiology.
Many people in our society and
in our Сhurches reduce mission to Christian missionary activity, that is to
Christian preaching (in the narrow and literal sense) to a non-Christian world,
and to the spread of Christianity. No doubt, such a task of witness,
proclamation, self-expression and growth
does exist; it is a natural and
intrinsic process within the Church
life. Traditional definition of mission at the beginning of
the last century: “Mission is preaching of one religious teaching among people
of another faith” [1]. As a rule, such a definition summed up how
people understood missionary activity among the pagan peoples of our far-flung
Russian Orthodox state, or even beyond
its borders. It was always assumed that Russian people, living in a country
where the church was tightly linked to the state, were deeply Orthodox. Such an
understanding was not adequate. But the current situation to an even greater
degree compels us to deepen our understanding of mission. Sadly today, Russian
society remains as it was during the period of state atheism far from religion.
The Church that used to exercise a foreign, external mission is now faced with
the task of an internal mission for which it needs a new, contemporary
understanding of the mission of the Church.
We need to be able to see the phenomenon of Christianity in contemporary
society through secular eyes. It is very important to know how Christianity and
Christian mission are perceived by society.
My task is to speak about the
specificities of Orthodox mission and of the Orthodox understanding of mission.
In the last 30 years Moscow Patriarchate published several missiological
documents, three of which deserve special attention: “The Concept of Reviving Missionary
Activities of the Russian Orthodox Church (1995), The Concept of the Missionary
Activity of the Russian Orthodox Church (2007) and the Concept
of the Missionary Work of the Russian Orthodox Church (2013) which is devoted
to a detailed elaboration of external mission as one of the forms of this work.
The Concept of the 2007 outlines five areas of the Church’s mission, one of
which is reconciliation. This is very important for today's discussion. “In the
modern world in which globalization processes, social stratification, mass migrations of people are accompanied by
heightened violence, manifestations of terrorist extremism and ethnic and
confessional tensions, evidence and proclamation of the possibility of
reconciliation between people of different nationalities, ages and social
groups, should become one of the key contents of the Orthodox Mission”.[2]
Reconciliation is the Mission of God and Mission of
the Church.
Concept of
Mission as Missio Dei was well developed in modern western missiology and later
came understanding that Reconciliation
is the Mission of God. “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in
[the Son], and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things
on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the
cross.” (Colossians 1:19-20)[3]
The topic “Reconciliation is the Mission of God” was well developed in
Catholic missiology. Missionary model for globalized and pluralistic world
carries an important and essential dimension, which is the concept of
reconciliation. This concept is discussed in the encyclical of John Paul II “Reconciliatio
et Paenitentia”. Reconciliation refers to four dimensions: reconciliation with
God, with oneself, with neighbour, with the world and the whole creation. The
American theologian Robert Schreiter developed an application of the concept of
reconciliation in the contemporary missionary model[4].
He considers healing and reconciliation as the most important dimension of
missionary activity today. The possibility of healing and reconciliation in a
divided society, says Schreiter, is one of the most important messages of the
Gospel in today’s world. Reconciliation as a fruit of the mission is a deep and
impressive manner expressed in the letter of the apostle Paul to Ephesians.
Paul here says about reconciliation through Christ’s blood, the demolition of
walls of division and hostility, the enthronement of peace, and the creation of
a new man who becomes through the Holy Spirit inhabitant of house of God
(Ephesians 2.1122). Bevans and Schroeder point out that reconciliation takes
place at several different levels. In the first place, there is the personal
level of reconciliation (for example, healing for victims of violent crimes or
for those who have suffered due to natural disasters), at the second level is
the cultural reconciliation (healing for people of cultural groups whose
cultural identity has been ignored or disparaged), the third level is the
political reconciliation (for example, in situations of violence among ethnic
groups or tribes, healing for refugees and victims who have escaped genocide),
and at the fourth level there is reconciliation within the Church itself (for
example, healing for victims of a clericalism)[5].
The
context of the times does point to the importance of a special focus today on a
way of doing mission that has reconciliation as a central missionary focus as
the church preaches, serves and witnesses to the “already” but “not yet” reign
of the triune God. The possibility of reconciliation is one of, if not the most
compelling way of expressing the meaning of the gospel today. In the midst of
unspeakable violence, unbearable pain and indelible scars on people’s memory,
the church as God’s minister of reconciliation proclaims that in Christ and in
his community, healing and reconciliation is possible.
47 Christian Leaders from the whole World published in 2005
a paper “Reconciliation as the
Mission of God. Christian
Witness in a World of Destructive Conflicts”. The first lines
are:
“The
mission of God in our fallen, broken world is reconciliation. Sacred Scripture
witnesses that God’s mission of reconciliation is holistic, including
relationships with God, self, others, and creation. This mission has never
changed from the Fall to the new creation in Christ, to its fulfilment in the coming
of Jesus in the eschaton”.[6]
The church is called to be a living sign of the one body of Christ, an agent of
hope and holistic reconciliation in our broken and fragmented world. Christians
participate with God’s mission by being transformed into ambassadors of
reconciliation. up in these conflicts — places where the blood of ethnicity,
tribe, racialism, sexism, caste, social class, or nationalism seems to flow
stronger than the waters of baptism and our confession of Christ. While the
church’s suffering faith is evident in many conflicts, the guilt of Christians
in intensifying the world's brokenness is seriously damaging our witness to the
gospel. The church’s captivity is both direct and indirect, whether actively
furthering destruction and division, remaining silent or neutral in the face of
it, or promoting a defective gospel.
Let us turn
again to the Concept of the
Missionary Activity of the Russian Orthodox Church
of the 2007: “The mission of reconciliation develops as a dialogue of life when people
live and communicate in everyday and social environments with people of other
faiths and ideologies. This way people get to know each other, respect each
other, learn from each other, because according to the word of St. John
Chrisostom, “we have nothing in common with the devil, with all the people we
have much in common”. The mission of reconciliation presupposes “social
dialoguing” through which people of different faiths work together to achieve
civil peace, prevent conflicts and extremist threats. Acting together for
creative traditional spiritual and moral values and fair laws, protecting the
sacred gift of life and confronting certain dangers of globalization, we can
achieve peace between conflicting peoples, nationalities, cultures, social
groups and countries”.[7]
This principle
simply and clearly defines the best tactics of mastering a new pattern of
communication between Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches. Whatever we
undertake, whether it be religious education of children, serving in a
penitentiary institution, solving ecological problems – all this is possible
and must be solved independently of our
ecclesiological views. Refusal to participate is a rejection of the mission,
open opposition to the will of God.
Acquaintance
with most important ecclesiastical documents (Orthodox as well as Catholic)
allows us to understand that in the both traditions, the mission is recognized
as relevant and necessary. So, among the
documents of the Orthodox Council on Crete in 2016 is a document “The Mission
of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World”.[8] Although the
delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church was not present at the council, the
Church nevertheless participated in the preparation of this document, and its
project is posted on the official Church website. What it says about the mission
of the Church is quite consonant with the understanding of the mission in such
Catholic Church documents as the Dogmatic Constitution “Lumen gentium” and the
declaration “Dominus
Jesus”. The mission of the Church is “to proclaim and establish among all peoples the
kingdom of Christ and of God, and she is on earth, the seed and the beginning
of that kingdom”.[9] The Orthodox document also
warns against manifestations of aggression and proselytism: “The Church as the Body of the incarnate Logos of God
(John Chrysostom, Homily before Exile, 2 PG 52, 429) constitutes
the living “presence” as the sign and image of the Kingdom of the Triune God in
history, proclaims the good news of a new creation (II Cor
5:17), of new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (II
Pt 3:13); news of a world in which God will wipe away every tear from
people’s eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There
shall be no more pain (Rev 21:4-5).
… The
conveyance of the Gospel’s message according to the last commandant of
Christ, Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them
to observe all that I have commanded you (Matt 28:19) is
the diachronic mission of the Church. This mission must be carried out
not aggressively or by different forms of proselytism, but in love, humility
and respect towards the identity of each person and the cultural particularity
of each people. All the Orthodox Church have an obligation to contribute to
this missionary endeavor».[10]
The need for
cooperation between Orthodox and Catholics in the cause of the Christian
mission is clearly and definitely stated in the Joint Statement of Pope Francis
and Patriarch Cyril on 13.02.2016. “We wish to combine our efforts to give
witness to the Gospel of Christ and to the shared heritage of the Church of the
first millennium, responding together to the challenges of the contemporary
world. Orthodox and Catholics must learn to give unanimously witness in those
spheres in which this is possible and necessary. Human civilization has entered
into a period of epochal change. Our Christian conscience and our pastoral
responsibility compel us not to remain passive in the face of challenges
requiring a shared response”.[11]
This joint
declaration specifically emphasizes the need for interreligious dialogue: “13. Interreligious dialogue is indispensable in our
disturbing times. Differences in the understanding of religious truths must not
impede people of different faiths to live in peace and harmony. In our current
context, religious leaders have the particular responsibility to educate their
faithful in a spirit which is respectful of the convictions of those belonging
to other religious traditions. Attempts to justify criminal acts with religious
slogans are altogether unacceptable. No crime may be committed in God’s name,
“since God is not the God of disorder but of peace” (1 Cor14:33).[12]
And another important aspect of the regional, in this case, European
mission: “16. The process
of European integration, which began after centuries of blood–soaked conflicts,
was welcomed by many with hope, as a guarantee of peace and security.
Nonetheless, we invite vigilance against an integration that is devoid of
respect for religious identities. While remaining open to the contribution of
other religions to our civilization, it is our conviction that Europe must
remain faithful to its Christian roots. We call upon Christians of Eastern and
Western Europe to unite in their shared witness to Christ and the Gospel, so
that Europe may preserve its soul, shaped by two thousand years of Christian
tradition”[13].
Having such a commission and obedience to the Church, how do we imagine the
inter-religion dialogues? Separately, Catholics with Muslims, separately,
Orthodox with Muslims? We lament, at times, that we cannot keep a full-fledged
dialogue since Muslims are divided, and Shiites are not ready to sit next to
Sunnis. But we have the same problem – despite the fact that the Churches proclaim
reconciliation as a mission of the Church.
And there is
another argument in favour of the missioniological approach to assessing the
relationship between Orthodox and Eastern Catholic communities. Missiological
approach is a holistic analysis taking into account all factors of the conflict
- psychological, political, cultural-historical, and even aesthetic. To give an
example, in the late 80s, when gradual liberalization allowed Eastern Catholic
communities in Ukraine to emerge from the underground, the then Exarch of the
MP, Metropolitan Philaret (Denisenko), refused any contacts and negotiations,
citing the fact that many supporters of the Union collaborated with German
fascists. Thus, psychologically, identification with the Uniates was
mechanically perceived as identification with fascism. Such an attitude can be
found in secular political journalism in today Russia as well. So hostility and
intolerance of the Orthodox towards the Eastern Catholic is determined not so
much by ecclesiological and ecclesiastical and canonical motives but more by
others.
But
the most effective way for reconciliation in this area, is cooperation and
common concern with missionary tasks. Of course, the same attitude towards
cooperation is natural with reference to
other confessions. But the Catholics of the Eastern rite and the Orthodox
should understand each other much better, and love much more, because the rite is not a
mechanical acquisition of historical heritage, but a fruit of spiritual life.
The Concept of the Missionary
Activity of the Russian Orthodox Church (2007) states:
“One of the important aspects of the reconciliation mission is “reconciliation
in memory”, when reconciliation takes place in the sociopolitical consciousness
of people. It is expected to remove conflicts, divisions and alienations caused
by civil wars and sharp ideological polarization of society. In a world torn by
political, social and religious conflicts, missionaries must realize that the
ministry of reconciliation and peace is given to us, "because God in
Christ reconciled the world to Him, not imputing [people] their crimes, and
gave us the word of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5, 19) ”.
Today, there is
in Russia a governmental program of memorializing the victims of political
repressions, working with participation of the ROC. A joint program of Orthodox
and Uniates might be a valuable contribution to the cause of reconciliation. By
the way, at a Moscow Church Council back in 1988-89, the then Metropolitan of
Leningrad and Novgorod Alexij declared: “We reconciled with peoples of those
countries, Protestants and Catholics, with whom we fought in the Second World
War. Why then can we not be reconciled with our Catholic brothers who at that
time were on the side of the enemy?”
It is possible today
to speak about an Orthodox missiology. Today I would like to suggest that the
Orthodox understanding of mission is acceptable to other Christian
denominations. It
is precisely this which unites us and permits us to speak about the possibility
and the necessity for combining our strengths and programs in the work of
mission.
And we should begin with the definition of what we
mean by the Mission of the Church. Is there a consensus of Catholic and
Orthodox in their understanding of the mission? Since most often the
accusations of Eastern
Catholic by the Orthodox
side imply what they call strategies of the Roman Catholic proselytism, it is
important to differentiate between the concepts of proselytism and missionary outreach. This analysis should be started by clarifying the concepts
of “mission of the Church”, “missionary outreach”, “conversion’, “evangelism”
or “evangelization”, “Christianization”, “witness”, “proselytism”. A thorough
analysis of the relationship between these concepts was made by an Orthodox
professor Petros Vassiliadis back in 1996.[14]
Another important topic is what we mean by Orthodoxy.
I mean not so much the administrative or legal aspects, as the Eastern
tradition as a whole, with its liturgical, ascetic, aesthetic, spiritual and
theological specificities. If our common mission is to strive for Christian
unity, to what extent are important closeness and agreement in all these
aspects? And probably in the first place, we should understand whether
or not we are striving for unity in the administrative and legal terms, or
perhaps we can be satisfied with unity without unification and integration.
In any case, I think that the key issue in our discussion is the question,
what is the mission of the Church. If we agree that the mission is
common, that is equally understood, then our discussion can focus on developing
evaluation criteria. What serves to accomplish the mission, unites,
and what prevents or contradicts the mission of the Church, divides and breeds
conflict. We must be aware that the situation is turning critical due to the
increasing globalization and secularization.
However, a
missiological evaluation of interconfessional relationships of some three past
decades makes us admit the presence of intraconfession conflict, that is
confrontation of creative versus fundamentalist approaches or attitudes in
almost every confession or denomination. It is much deeper than the opposition
of conservatives and liberals. Such a conflict does not allow to resolve
interconfessional conflicts since it’s like a collision of two types of
personality each of which has an analogue on the side of the opponent. And so
far, there will be no reconciliation of these two types of personality. This
would only be possible through the cultivation of a culture of reconciliation,
tolerance, freedom of conscience, religious pluralism, and spiritual
asceticism. A vivid example is the attitude of the Russian Orthodox towards
ecumenism. For almost 60 years, the Russian Orthodox Church has officially taken part in the WCC, but the
farther away, the more acute becomes the reaction of the clergy and laity
opponents of this cooperation. So, in particular, the Balamand Declaration,
prepared 26 years ago and accepted by the Mixed Commission, is not only
unreciplined, but there is less and less hope for its adoption. Suffice it to
recall the wave of protests in Russia against the meeting and the Joint
Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill in Cuba. This testifies to a serious problem of fundamentalism
in both Russia and Ukraine. It is essentially important to pay attention to the
fact that in the normative documents of the Orthodox Council (Creta 2016)
fundamentalism is condemned and qualified as “morbid religiosity”: “4) The explosions of fundamentalism observed within various religions represent anexpression of morbid religiosity. Sober inter-religious
dialogue helps significantly to promote mutual trust, peace and
reconciliation. The oil of religious experience must be used to heal wounds and
not to rekindle the fire of military conflicts. The Orthodox Church
unequivocally condemns the extension of military violence, persecutions, the
expulsion and murder of members of religious minorities, forced conversions,
the trafficking of refugees, the abductions, torture and abhorrent executions.»[15]. Encyclical of the Holy
and Great Council of the Orthodox Church states 17. We are experiencing today an increase of violence in the name of God.
The explosions of fundamentalism within religious communities threaten to
create the view that fundamentalism belongs to the essence of the phenomenon of
religion. The truth, however, is that fundamentalism, as “zeal not
based on knowledge” (Rom 10.2), constitutes an expression of morbid
religiosity. A true Christian, following the example of the crucified Lord,
sacrifices himself and does not sacrifice others, and for this reason is the
most stringent critic of fundamentalism of whatever provenance »[16].
The qualification of
fundamentalism as morbid religiosity
makes it necessary to treat this phenomenon very carefully. Fundamentalism is
often understood in Orthodoxy (as well as in Catholicism and Protestantism, by
the way) as a positive value, as loyalty to traditionalism and opposition to
modernism. However, under the pressure
of the current situation of multiple ethno -religious conflicts we must by all
means clearly distinct between traditionalism or conservatism - and fundamentalism.
I believe that the opponents of the unity of the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic Churches are on the both sides individuals infected with the bacillus of fundamentalism. Unless the intolerance of fundamentalism is overcome, it is hard to hope for progress in relations between Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches. And yet, it must be remembered that this is a mission of the Church.
I believe that the opponents of the unity of the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic Churches are on the both sides individuals infected with the bacillus of fundamentalism. Unless the intolerance of fundamentalism is overcome, it is hard to hope for progress in relations between Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches. And yet, it must be remembered that this is a mission of the Church.
[1] "A complete Orthodox Theological
EncyclopediИ по стилю,
и по всему,
видно,
что гонишь откуда-то совершенно a",
Soikina, vol 2, pg 1572.
[5]
S.B. Bevans and R.P. Schroeder, Constants in Context: A Theology of Mission for
Today, Maryknoll – Orbis Books, New York, 2004, p. 391-392
[6] Reconciliation as the Mission of God. Christian
Witness in a World of Destructive Conflicts 2995
https://divinity.duke.edu/sites/divinity.duke.edu/files/documents/cfr/reconciliaton-as-the-mission-of-god.pdf
[9] Second
Vatican Council, Dogmatic
Constitution Lumen gentium, 5.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid/
[14] Petros
Vassiliadis.
Mission and proselytism: an orthodox understanding// International
Review of Mission, April, 1996.
[15] Message of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church
[16] Encyclical of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church
