ANGLICANISM, ORTHODOXY, AND SERVING THE LORD IN TODAY’S WORLD: REFLECTIONS ON FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD

 

 Ecumenical Trends Vol 49 No 5,  Graymoor Ecumenical & Interreligious Institute  September/October 2020, pp.19-23

 The Very Rev. Dr. Sarah Rowland Jones, LVO, OBE, is the Dean of St. Davids Cathedral (Tyddewi), Wales. A British Diplomat for 15 years prior to ordination in the Church in Wales, she has since also spent a decade as Research and Ecumenical Advisor to successive Archbishops of Cape Town. She has been a member of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission for Ecumenical Relations (2000-2008), the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission for Unity, Faith and Order (2009-2019), and the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue (2015-present). She is a regular broadcaster, and writes and speaks on ecumenism, spiri-tuality, and public theology.

For the Life of the World (FLW), a ground-breaking document on the social ethos of the Orthodox Church, was commissioned “to serve as a solid foundation for reference and conversation on vital issues and challenges facing the world today.”1 This conversation is one to be had not merely within the Orthodox families of churches, but also with their ecumenical partners and indeed within the wider world. It is particularly timely, given that so many bilateral and multilateral dialogues among Christian tradi-tions have in the last couple of decades moved from more traditionally “theological” topics to exploring ethical ques-tions, and to the ways these may be fruitfully tackled from more thoroughgoing theological perspectives. Therefore, not only in what it says, but perhaps even more importantly in the ways the document has found for saying it, FLW has the capacity to be a rich resource for Christians and eccle-sial bodies attempting to address the challenges of our con-temporary world with a deeper spiritual integrity.are among those addressed by FLW. So it is within the con-text of this Anglican-Orthodox dialogue that I shall particu-larly consider aspects of this document, first taking a detour to set the wider historical context of Anglican-Orthodox relationships. Anglican-Orthodox engagement of various sorts has a long, dense, and mainly cordial history, of which only highlights can be given here. Anglican Reformers, under-standing the English Reformation as a return to the theology and practices of the early church, were often well-versed in patristics, and liturgical reform was similarly influenced (Cranmer notably had a well-thumbed copy of the Liturgy of John Chrysostom).2 Many Caroline divines regarded Anglican approaches to the interplay of theology and prayer as akin to those of the Apostolic Fathers and their succes-sors.3 The next century saw considerable communication between Orthodox figures and Non-Jurors, some of whom hoped to establish a relationship of communion.4 Nor was this interest all one-way: Cyril Loukaris, Patriarch of Con-stantinople in the early seventeenth century, corresponded with George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the eighteenth-century Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk, Bishop of Voronezh, drew upon Anglican books of devotion.5A further wave of Anglican interest arose in the nine-teenth century, as the Oxford Movement looked to the early church, seeking forms of renewal in contrast to both liberal and evangelical tendencies.6 1864 saw the founding of the Eastern Church Association, still extant today under the co-patronage of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Ecumenical Patriarch.7 The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, founded in 1928, similarly promotes under-By Sarah Rowland Jones.The current dialogue between Orthodox and Anglicans, particularly that held through the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue (of which I am a member), deliberately turned its focus to what it terms “Christian anthropology” as it began its fourth phase in 2009. This has led to the Buffalo Agreed Statement, In the Image and Likeness of God: A Hope-Filled Anthropology, which aims to be a foundational consideration of primary doctrines held in common, from which a second phase of work is now evolving, as the practical consequences of these theological presuppositions are explored in relation to various specific areas of ethical challenge – some of which standing between Eastern Orthodox and Western Christians, primarily Anglicans and Roman Catholics.8 The continuing vibrant life of both associations illustrates how a significant body of Anglicans have long felt a strong affinity to the his-toric and current faith and life of the Orthodox Churches.Such closeness has also been recognized institution-ally. Lambeth Conferences from 1888 onwards warmly welcomed various contacts and conversations, including between Archbishops of Canterbury, Patriarchs of Con-stantinople, and others; pressed for closer relations through formal committees; and even dared to hope for the possi-bility of moving towards “intercommunion” (Resolutions 1888:17; 1897:36; 1908:62, 63; 1920:18, 19). Commitment to dialogue has persisted, though not without substantial challenges. Following informal talks with an Orthodox delegation at the 1958 Lambeth Conference, and after a 1962 meeting between the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Michael Ramsey) and the Ecumenical Patriarch (Athenagoras I), proposals for a joint Theological Commis-sion duly bore fruit in the 1976 Moscow Agreed Statement.9This statement addressed common theological concerns in-cluding the knowledge of God, the inspiration and authority of scripture and its relationship with tradition, the filioque clause, and aspects of the Eucharist.10The next phase of talks, of course, had to grapple with the implications of the 1978 Lambeth Conference Res-olutions on the ordination of women.11 This led to some refocusing of the Commission’s work around “the pastoral and practical dimensions of the subjects of theological dis-cussions,”12 the first hint of moving towards more social-ly-rooted debate – not least, it must be admitted, because it was evident that a move towards full communion was not yet on the cards.13The third phase of dialogue was launched in 1989, re-constituted as the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue (ICAOTD). This led in 2006 to the Cyprus Agreed Statement, The Church of the Triune God, a detailed consideration of the doctrine of the Church in the light of the doctrine of the Trinity, and aspects of ordained ministry.14 It touched on Christian understandings of the human person, and how the Christian life is lived and the gospel proclaimed, within culture.15 The Cyprus Statement, in turn, became the springboard for the fourth phase of the dialogue, which, since 2009, has focused on theological anthropology, committed to finding ways to speak together despite concerns over areas of difference in practice. Its work has been in two stages. The first task was to consider “the primary doctrines held in common,” which resulted in the 2015 Buffalo Statement, In the Image and Likeness of God.16 The second task, now underway, is exploring the practical consequences that follow from these theological suppositions in relation to particular pressing ethical challenges. Humanity’s care for the environment and end of life issues have been the first addressed. At the heart of this most recent phase has been aware-ness of the need for an evolving theological methodology – or perhaps, evolving way of enunciating theology – ade-quate to the new subject matter. Thus, the Buffalo Statement might well be termed as confessional in mode, rooted in doxology and eschatological hope. In exploring how “di-vine revelation and human creativity are interconnected,”17it does not shy away from the often-messy interplay be-tween the two, in the concrete aspects of human existence in all our fallenness, even as we are grasped by redemptive hope. It is immediately clear, as we turn to FLW, that there are significant resonances and points of connection with the most recent work of ICAOTD, in both style and con-tent. Even its opening heading, It is time to serve the Lord, indicates a similar starting point of understanding the human person and all human life as being in response to the God who creates and redeems – in this paradigm, exploring a social ethos requires beginning with a theological anthropology. The assertion that “our service to God is fundamentally doxological in nature and essentially Eucharistic in character” (§1) could equally find a home within an Anglican-Orthodox statement. The theological method that follows similarly tackles the stretching task of bringing into dialogue the continuity of theological truths and the challenges of contextualiza-tion. The document’s Preface helpfully spells out the under-lying assumptions in this approach: Holy tradition, however, is much more than a static de-posit inherited from the past, requiring nothing more than assiduous curatorship and rote repetition. It is not simply a memorial to the words of the Fathers of old, but is rather the living and dynamic reality to which those words pointed, the ever abiding presence of the Holy Spirit who descended upon the Apostles at Pentecost, a constant and ever-new pilgrimage toward the Kingdom that is to come. It is this living tradition that inspires the Church to recover its sacred calling and that endows her with the divine courage to transform the world with all its new challenges from within...It is not merely that “speaking to the contemporary world ‘from within’” highlights the incarnational mode (an em-phasis which broadly speaking is close to Anglican hearts), but that theology “from below” must be brought into insis-tent engagement with the traditions of theology, which can sometimes still appear to dominate. That the Special Com-mission responsible for authoring FLW is not constituted of bishops or other hierarchs is noteworthy in this respect. Reading on, we find that they do not shy away from clearly naming particularly painful contemporary realities which the churches cannot in all honesty duck. That these must be acknowledged and faced is drawn out further in the Preface’s second emphasis, that the theological work must connect with today’s most urgent pastoral concerns. This, they understand, requires guidelines “as general parameters, not as rigid boundaries,” and so they have attempted “to avoid nebulous abstractions and sweeping generalizations, preferring to offer specific principles for consideration and adoption by the faithful and their communities.” In pur-suit of this goal, they have looked to “biblical, patristic, dogmatic, and theological sources of the tradition as a whole.” Those who are more expert than I in some of the areas addressed by FLW will want to judge the extent to which tangible, durable, user-friendly guidelines have been developed, but even where they fall short of this goal, we nonetheless have before us a rich and provocative resource to stimulate the wider church: first through extensive citing of patristic sources, common to us all, and, even more so, in the often creative and insightful ways these are brought to bear both in interpreting tradition and in addressing contemporary contexts often far beyond what the Fathers could possibly have imagined.In its own way, FLWis also a piece of confessional theology, steeped in redemptive hope and eschatological promise, in light of its affirmation that “being made in the image and likeness of God, each person is unique and infinitely precious, and each is a special object of God’s love”; and that our “ultimate destiny ... to which we are summoned, is nothing less than our theosis... .” Even if we might not often use such language, Anglicans can hardly quibble with the conclusions that follow: “Our spir-itual lives, therefore cannot fail also to be social lives. Our piety cannot fail also to be an ethos” (§3). Both assertions are valuable touchstones for the coherence of our own ethical reflections. What then of the specific areas on which the document focuses? I shall offer a few snapshot comments, beginning with Section II, which addresses “The Church in the Pub-lic Sphere,” and to which I come wearing particularly the hat of a former British diplomat. There are considerable, often unvoiced, parallels between Anglicans and Orthodox, where Churches have historically found themselves aligned with state and nation, or through Empire and its legacy,18and much of what is said in this section will resonate with Anglican readers. Within the context of current threats of populism in so many parts of the world, I am particularly struck by the reflections around the need not to take democ-racy for granted, for “it would be irrational and uncharitable of Christians not to feel a genuine gratitude for the special democratic genius of the modern age.” Therefore we must indeed “actively support... and work for the preservation of democratic institutions and customs...” (§10). Anglicans grieving marginalization by secularism, particularly in England, should also heed the warning that follows, not to fall for the temptations of a “fantastic nos-talgia for some long-vanished golden era” when church and state appeared to be united. Further, it is not only Orthodox Christians who have “allowed for the conflation of nation-al, ethnic, and religious identity” resulting in “advancing national and cultural interests under the guise of Christian adherence.” Acknowledging that “this has often inhibited the Church in its vocation to proclaim the Gospel to all peoples” is a responsibility of Anglicans also, for there remains con-siderable unfinished business around colonial history that must be truthfully addressed if genuine liberative freedom is to follow. I suspect that the warnings around “phyletism” and the “subordination of Orthodox faith to ethnic identities and national interests” (§10-11) are also warnings that some parts of the Anglican world would do well to take to heart.In this era which has found the voice to proclaim that “Black Lives Matter,” the Document, though in its Preface committing itself “to abstain altogether from the language and intonations of judgment or condemnation” is gloriously forthright in its denunciation of racism of every sort, calling for those who will not “renounce the evils they promote” to be exposed, denounced, and expelled (§11). A similarly hard line is taken against antisemitism (§57) and slavery (§65). The unequivocal stance on the sexual abuse of children (§16) is one Anglicans should particularly echo, as some parts of the Communion still wrestle adequately to address such legacies of the (too-recent) past and present. Section III, on “The Course of Human Life,” is ambi-tious in scope and courageous in its head-on approach, tak-ing stances which, rooted in pastoral realities, may surprise readers within and beyond the Orthodox family. For exam-ple, the document’s assertion that “the Church understands human identity as residing primarily not in one’s sexuality or in any other private quality, but rather in the image and likeness of God present in all of us,” and that consequently “all Christians are called always to seek the image and likeness of God in each other, and to resist all forms of discrimination against their neighbors, regardless of sexual orientation” (§18), is a necessary resetting of perspec-tives for those parts of global Christianity (not least, areas of Anglican discourse) where this matter is in danger of becoming something of a shibboleth. So too, reflecting more widely on adult relationships, the document is refreshingly honest (and ecumenically provocative) in acknowledging that Orthodox teaching has at times been distorted by “the unfortunate reality that... spiritual teachings on these mat-ters have been advanced principally by celibate men with no experience of married life” (§20). issues, and even the single paragraph at §31 is stimulating in the breadth and honesty with which it names so many sharp issues, past weaknesses, contemporary challenges, and touchstone principles. It will certainly provoke fresh engagement from both sides of our dialogue. Another area of particular interest is the acknowledgement that while “the Orthodox Church has always held as a matter of doc-trine and theology that men and women are equals in per-sonhood, it has not always proved scrupulously faithful to this ideal” (§29). Accordingly, the paragraph continues to make a call for the Orthodox Church to “remain attentive to the promptings of the Spirit in regard to the ministry of women” and for consideration of a “renewal of the order of the female diaconate.” Indeed, the hermeneutical grounding on which these possibilities are considered shifts the locus of such debates to new, and potentially fertile, ground. That said, there are points with which Anglicans will want to differ, or at least seek deeper clarification. For ex-ample, in considering the increasing numbers of “Orthodox marriages [which] include a spouse who is not an Orthodox Christian,” the document looks to St Paul’s teaching that “the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her hus-band” (1 Cor 7:14) (§21). There seems to be an unfortu-nate implicit assumption that those who are not Orthodox are not Christian. Similarly, ecumenical partners’ alarm bells will ring when reading Section VI, “Ecumenical Relations and Relations with Other Faiths,” which asserts that “The Orthodox Church understands herself to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of which the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol of faith speaks... In other words, it is not a Church, but the Church” (§50). This is finessed somewhat in subsequent paragraphs, though here there is evidence of some lack of linguistic subtlety in balancing positive affirmations about the riches of Orthodoxy with references to other Christian traditions. That said, the doc-ument does acknowledge “especially close relations with those communions that are directly descended from the ancient Apostolic Church and that share something like her understanding of the apostolic charism of episcopal succes-sion and something like her sacramental theology”; it adds that “the Church has important bilateral dialogues with the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, and prays that these dialogues may bear fruit in a complete unity with the Church” (§53). Well, yes and no – unity, surely, we all desire; but for most Anglicans this would mean rather more than being offered an opportunity for unity “with” the Church, as it is seemingly presented here. Even so, it must be concluded that the document offers much to fuel the longstanding Anglican aspiration for com-munion, and more, with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. .There is so much else within the document that can be grist for the Anglican mill. It is a given, for instance, that Anglicans (not alone, of course) have been firm support-ers of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s initiatives over recent decades for the preservation of the environment (see §68) – and it is perhaps no surprise that the first agreed text to arise from ICAOTD’s current work in specific areas of common ethical challenge is likely to address care for God’s creation. The second area currently under debate relates to end of life his is something I feel particularly keenly, as the Dean of St Davids Cathedral, standing in the place where St David himself – a saint acknowledged in both East and West – established a religious community in the sixth century, long before most of our current divisions. This year the Church in Wales marks the centenary of its disestablishment from the Church of England in 1920, becoming an independent member church of the Anglican Communion; five years later, this Cathedral hosted a remarkable visitation from the Orthodox churches. Ostensibly, the Patriarch Photios of Alexandria and Patriarch Damianos of Jerusalem, along with their delegations, were in the United Kingdom for cel-ebrations around the 1600th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, with events in Westminster Abbey and York Minster. The delegation also came to a service at St Davids, where it suited both Orthodox and Welsh to play up their putative historic linkages. Though impossible to prove, later tradition held that David himself had been consecrated by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and thus the Welsh Church could, and in this context did, claim descent from Eastern, rather than Western, Christian roots – umpteen intervening centuries under Canterbury’s Rome-instigated heritage not-withstanding! Indeed, recent excavations at the coast near here have found the remains of individuals of only a cen-tury or so later, from the Eastern Mediterranean, and other asserted connections between Celtic Christianity and the Desert Fathers or other Orthodox Christians may have more historic substance than we can demonstrate. So, although the events of 1925 may have been shot through with all manner of political aspirations, the calls of both sides for swift movement towards reunion, as reported in the press, were not merely window dressing; the Spirit continues to draw all Christian people towards true unity in Christ. In conclusion, conversations must continue, truly, “for the life of the world,” and the present document has tremen-dous capacity to help Orthodox and Anglicans understand more fully not only one another, but also the common life of witness and service to which we are all called for the sake of the Gospel and for the sake of the Kingdom. “Nothing written here can bear much fruit if taken in abstraction from the full sacramental life of those who are called to be in im-mersed in the fire of the Holy Spirit, joined thereby to Christ and, through Christ, to the Father,” this Document cautions in its Conclusion (§79). May we take this warning to heart, and all grow into the fulness of this promise. Amen.

 Notes: 

1. https://www.goarch.org/social-ethos-preface.

 2. See, for example, Andrew McGowan, “Anglicanism and the Fathers,” in The Oxford Handbook of Anglican Studies, edited by Mark D. Chapman, Sathianathan Clarke, and Martyn Percy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 107-24. 

3. See, for example, John E. Booty, “Standard Divines,” in The Study of Anglicanism, Revised Edition, edited by Stephen Sykes, John E. Booty, and Jonathan Knight (London: SPCK, 1998), 176-87.

 4. Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (London: Penguin, 1963), 108-09.5. Ware, The Orthodox Church,129.6. McGowan, “Anglicanism and the Fathers,” 115f. 

7. www.aeca.org.uk.

 8. www.sobornost.org.

 9. Initially, Anglican and Orthodox Commissions met separately from 1966 to 1972, before moving to joint conversations. See “Background,” in the Introduction to the Dublin Agreed Statement of 1984, available at www.anglicancommunion.org/media/103812/the_dublin_statement.pdf. 

10. www.anglicancommunion.org/media/103815/the_moscow_statement.pdf. 

11. See the Introduction to the Dublin Agreed Statement of 1984. 

12. Alongside the Introduction, see “The Athens Report 1978,” Appendix 2 of the Dublin Agreed Statement. 

13. The 1984 Dublin Agreed Statement therefore remained very “theological” in tone and content, addressing “The Mystery of the Church,” “Faith in the Trinity,” “Prayer and Holiness,” and “Worship and Tradition.”

 14. www.anglicancommunion.org/media/103818/The-Church-of-the-Triune-God.pdf.15. See particularly, Section III: Christ, Humanity and the Church: Part I. 

16. www.anglicancommunion.org/media/208538/in-the-image-and-likeness-of-god-a-hope-filled-anthropology-2015.pdf. 

17. Buffalo Agreed Statement, §1.18. For example, see Thabo Makgoba, “Politics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Anglican Studies, edited by Mark D. Chapman, Sathianathan Clarke, and Martyn Percy (Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press, 2015), 372-83.