.png "English"){kind=small}
by Philip Kariatlis, St Andrew’s Theological College
The first point to be made is that very little – if
anything extensive at all – has been written about this fairly recent term from
an Orthodox perspective.[1]
At first glance, it seems a welcome term in so far as it moves beyond the
aspirations of ecumenical reception –
which simply sought to gauge the extent of acceptance and consent given by
different churches to particular agreed texts [eg. BEM] – and calls the
different churches towards an openness to learning and receiving from one other
in a spirit of shared exploration, the ultimate aim of which can be nothing
other than receiving one another as churches.
For the Orthodox Churches – and this would come as no
surprise – this stage of our commitment towards mutual accountability [namely,
receptive ecumenism] would ultimately be perfected in the ability to share in
the same cup of the risen Lord. The words of St Paul in his Corinthian
correspondence make the connection between reception and Eucharist [cf. 1Cor
11:23: “For I received from the Lord [παρέλαβον ἀπό τοῦ Κυρίου] what I also
handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a
loaf of bread”]. Understood in this light, receptive ecumenism
comes to be seen in personal and existential terms; namely, the call for
churches to discern the very presence of Christ beyond their own canonical
ecclesial boundaries. In this sense, receptive ecumenism, which is not a matter
of agreement of doctrinal texts, ultimately has to be understood from within
the context of mutual ecclesiological recognition.
Beyond the plethora of fundamental ecclesiological
questions that this may raise for different churches, it is a method/attitude
which is worth exploring and in this quest, two guiding principles could prove
helpful:
Theological Pointers
It has to be appreciated that receptive ecumenism belongs to the very being [esse] of the church; if it is accepted that the church’s being is essentially
communal – namely sharing or, giving and receiving [cf. Col 2:6: “As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord,
continue to live your lives in him,”][2]
– then the idea of reception is
inherently a part of this communal process and the churches’ quest for unity.
The Orthodox Church would want to highlight that an attitude of receptivity
towards other churches first presupposes a vertical receptivity by all in this
regard. The church is only to the
extent that it receives Christ
in the Holy Spirit leading the faithful to the Father which it then endeavors
to hand on to the world for its reception. Accordingly, learning, receiving,
being mutually accountable and ultimately being enriched by other churches will
only prove to be effective if all are firstly seeking to receive from God. It
is this theological insight which ought to shed light and inform the different
churches’ call to be receptive ecumenically towards other ecclesial
communities.
Secondly, since the church is the ‘church of God’ then
the vertical understanding of
reception highlighted above needs to be witnessed on a horizontal level as well. In the New Testament it is clear that
even though the church is one, it also existed concretely and was actualised in
different local churches. Even though the historical circumstances were
different from those today, it was precisely the idea of mutual inclusion,
reciprocity and receptivity in the early church that maintained the integrity
of a local church and subsequently safeguarded its unity with other local
churches; any sense of self-sufficiency or isolation of any local church would
have inevitably also destroyed its true catholicity. This means that the
building of relationships where different local churches are open to learning from
each other in various areas of church life is of paramount importance – it
could even be boldly stated that it is this attitude which makes a church,
church.
Practical Application
Based on these two theological pointers, possibilities
for receptive ecumenism, from an Orthodox perspective, could focus not simply
on what each church can receive from
others but also, conversely, what it can give. If receiving and giving were
seen as mutually interdependent concepts then receptive ecumenism could mean
exploring together a series of themes in a spirit
of shared exploration. In other words it goes beyond listing what one
church can offer and what it can receive. Rather, the two go together. And so,
in this spirit of reciprocity, if, for example, it is accepted that theology in
the twenty-first century will focus its attention on a theology of human
personhood[3]
– an area that underlies some of the most burning questions and debates today –
then surely no one could assert that they have exhaustive answers; surely it
could be admitted that in its present state Christian anthropology could be
further developed to respond adequately to the many challenges posed by society
today: such as gender distinction, homosexuality, same-sex marriages etc. This
is but one example – others could have been cited. The importance of receptive
ecumenism in any question raised is that the churches begin to learn that in
order to be effective and truly themselves they need others; namely in order to
be truly me, I need to embrace you.
by Philip Kariatlis
St Andrew’s Theological
College
[1] I know of a talk given at the Society of
Ecumenical Studies at the London day conference on Receptive Ecumenism (3
November 2007) by Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia titled: ‘Receptive
Ecumenism – An Orthodox Perspective’. This paper appeared in Louvain Studies 33.1-2(2008): 46-53.
[2] Cf. also 1Cor 15:1; 1Cor 15:3; Gal 1:9; Gal
1:12; Phil 4:9; Col 2:6; 1Thess 2:13; 1Thess 4:1; 2Thess 3:6 and Heb
12:28.
[3] This was already stated by theologians of
the Orthodox Church at the turn of the twentieth century. Cf. Nicholas
Berdyaev, The Meaning of the Creative
Act, trans. Donald A. Lowrie (London:
V. Gollanz, 1955), first published in Russian in 1913. The argument, here, was
that the first common Christian millennium dealt with the person of Christ; the
following, according to Berdyaev would have to deal with the human person in
light of Christ.
