Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe

Volume 17 Issue 5 Article 4

10-1997

Bria's "Romania: Orthodox Identity at a Crossroads of Europe" -

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ree

Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Eastern European Studies Commons

Recommended Citation
Pope, Dr. Earl A. (1997) "Bria's "Romania: Orthodox Identity at a Crossroads of Europe" - Book Review,"
Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe: Vol. 17 : Iss. 5 , Article 4.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ree/vol17/iss5/4

This Article, Exploration, or Report is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ George Fox
University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe by an authorized
editor of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Book Review

Ion Bria, Romania: Orthodox Identity at a Crossroads of Europe. Gospel and Cultures Pamphlet 3.
Geneva: WCC Publications, 1995. Pp. 54. $5.50, paper.

This is a very important, but all too brief, work by Professor Ion Bria, a Romanian Orthodox
theologian who spent more than twenty years in various offices at the World Council of Churches in
Geneva, Switzerland, where he also served as the primary consultant on his church until his retirement in
1994.

The monograph ostensibly has a two-fold purpose: To examine the relationship between
Orthodoxy and culture in Romania and to plead for ecumenical understanding and cooperation. He also
hopes that his work will assist others outside the country to comprehend the religious situation so that
they can intervene in creative ways. He indicates that he is writing from an Orthodox perspective, but at
the same time he offers a courageous and penetrating critique of his own church and its leaders.

Bria states that he will not engage in "unnecessary polemics or apologetics," but it is highly
questionable as to whether or not he succeeds in this effort. He touches on many sensitive issues and
there are instances in which his objectivity can certainly be challenged. Most of his work is devoted to an
exposition of the historical and theological development of one of the most common themes of
contemporary Romanian Orthodoxy--the unity of Orthodoxy with the soul of the Romanian people. It is
not fully clear whether or not his focus on this subject is meant to be an explanation or a justification of
this theme. He looks upon this unity with a great deal of nostalgia, and although he is aware of the
danger of nationalism, he finds it difficult to articulate a creative role that the minority religious
communities can have in this area.

The deeply held conviction of the unity of Orthodoxy and the Romanian people is mythologized
by some Orthodox theologians as if it were divinely mandated, and it frequently finds itself much too
comfortable with destructive forms of nationalism. How Bria hopes that it could possibly promote the
ecumenical cause is difficult to determine. It may well be that the "ethnic formation of the Romanian
people took place simultaneously with the penetration of the gospel (the Orthodox faith)," but what does
that mean for the contemporary situation with its large ethnic minorities and for the many ethnic
Romanians who have voluntarily identified themselves with the religious minorities? This deeply-rooted
Orthodox belief may well prove to be the major obstacle to authentic dialogue between the majority and
the minority churches. Bria may not be aware that Nae Ionescu, who is one of his sources for the
development of the mystical unity of Orthodoxy and the soul of the Romania, is also considered to be one
of the "mentors" of the infamous Iron Guard.

Bria is very alarmed by the chaotic, "incoherent" state of the Romanian society and the Orthodox
Church, by the "perfidious agnostic indifference" of many Romanians, and by the moral and spiritual
plight of its young people. He deplores the entrenched traditionalism in the church on the one hand and
the rising mysticism on the other, points to the danger of "nationalistic captivity," and calls for a
transformed church which will be fully involved in the burning issues of the day. He is deeply concerned
regarding the lack of leadership to guide the church into a new age. He raises the very revealing question:
"Who are the ecclesiastical leaders who have the right to speak about Orthodoxy as good news for
Romania?" Without an internal reformation and renewal he warns that there will be empty churches and
parallel religious groups. He also raises the specter of "civil eruption" and the "self-destruction" of his
church. He obviously believes that the Orthodox Church finds itself in the midst of a profound identity
crisis.

His plea for ecumenical understanding and cooperation at times sounds more like a call for
confrontation than an invitation to dialogue and he needs to develop his views further on what the
relationships of the majority church and the minority religious communities should be. He appears to be
very comfortable speaking about ecumenism in general, but when he specifically refers to the non-
orthodox Christian communities his ecumenical vision has serious limitations. To be sure he indicts all of
the churches with "ecumenical hypocrisy," which they would undoubtedly repudiate, and there is no
question but that the theology of ecumenism needs to be further developed in all of them. He
unfortunately charges the Reformed and the Lutheran churches, the erstwhile ecumenical partners with
the Orthodox, with being prompted by "confessionalism and ethnocentrism" because of their opposition
to the legal recognition of the Orthodox Church as the national church. This is a very complex matter,
and since the strong disapproval of these churches very likely provided the motivation for Bria's study, it
is very important to see the causal factors in the right perspective.

Following the revolution in 1989--before the new Romanian constitution was developed and the
additional legislation on religious freedom was proposed--there were strong differences of opinion
between the new Ministry of Religious Affairs and a number of the religious communities regarding the
parameters of the newly found freedom. To avoid more serious conflict the Ministry established a
committee in the spring of 1990 with representatives chosen by the fifteen fully recognized religious
communities to draft the new religious legislation which would then be submitted by the Ministry to the
country's new parliament for approval. The proposed legislation, which was developed by the
committee, on the whole undergirded and amplified the constitutional declarations. It reaffirmed that the
Romanian state recognized, respected, and guaranteed the liberty and autonomy of the religious
communities. It stated emphatically that the ecumenical spirit, tolerance, and mutual respect must be at
the basis of the relations among the religious communities. Professor Gheorghe Vladutescu, the head of
the Ministry of Religious Affairs, was proud of the committee's early unanimous decision that there was
to be no state church. All the churches were to be equal before the law and the state; there was to be no
privileged church with any form of discrimination against the other religious communities. There had
been vigorous discussions regarding this issue in the constitutional debates, but in the end the
implication clearly was that all the religious communities, including the majority church, were to be
treated equally.

The final draft of the proposed religious legislation brought about a serious division among the
representatives of the churches, and this has not as yet been legally resolved. At the final meeting of the
committee (October 28, 1993) two of the most articulate bishops of the Romanian Orthodox Church were
sent by the Holy Synod to insist that the phrase National Church be added after the listing of the
Romanian Orthodox Church in Article 22 in the proposed legislation. This came as a shock to the
representatives of the minority churches since this issue had not been raised by the Orthodox
representatives on a committee which had been deliberating for more than three years, and the timing
was such that there could not be a serious dialogue on the full implications of such a proposal. What had
been the most significant ecumenical and democratic encounter of the religious communities regarding
the rights to which they were all entitled and the freedom which they should share ended in a very
serious confrontation between the minority churches and the majority church.

The official Orthodox explanation was that this unquestionably was simply a statement of a
historical and cultural fact and that no legal advantage was intended or desired for the Romanian
Orthodox Church. The Protestant churches (Reformation and Evangelical alike) were joined by both the
Roman and the Greek Catholic churches in radical opposition to this addition and stated this officially in
a footnote in the proposed legislation which they finally agreed, with considerable reluctance, to present
to the parliament. They were convinced that this addition represented a serious contradiction to Article 4
which was an unambiguous declaration of their full equality before the law and the state. They also felt
that it violated the spirit of the Romanian constitution and their proposed legislation regarding
ecumenism and mutual respect. They feared that it would reinforce the myth that there was a mystical or
inextricable unity between the Orthodox Church and the soul of the Romanian people and that only
Orthodox believers could be trusted as loyal Romanian citizens. This has long been a very contentious
issue. They see the Orthodox Church as unequivocally identifying itself as the church of the Romanian
people and all too frequently as the sole vehicle whereby the national and spiritual identity is preserved,
thus raising serious questions about its understanding of the importance of the religious and ethnic
pluralism within the country and of the true nature of religious freedom.

The minorities perceive this as a serious threat to their freedom. There is a deep underlying fear
that this last minute intervention was an attempt by a very insecure hierarchy to sabotage the entire
document and to assert the supremacy of Orthodoxy with the power of the state behind it. The proposed
legislation has been in the hands of the parliament for three years and there are reports that even more
substantive changes are contemplated. An interrelated complex of unresolved tensions has surfaced
which has damaged the relationships of the religious communities in the past and continues to trouble
them in the post-communist era leading to distrust and antagonisms which have deep historical roots.
The Romanian Orthodox Church has not wavered in its determination to be established legally as
the national church. In January, 1994, it changed its own constitution to incorporate this concept and it
has continually defended its right in this regard even to the point of supporting an amendment to the
Romanian constitution. It is clear that the rationale for the proposed amendment has changed or has been
further disclosed with the recent surge of nationalism in Romania. It is unfortunate that there has not
been an authentic dialogue between the minority churches and the majority church over how the national
church issue can be resolved. The Lutheran and Reformed churches sharply criticized, through their
representatives, the lack of ecumenism in Romania at a meeting of the Central Committee of the WCC in
January of 1994. This declaration helped to undermine the hope of the Romanian Orthodox Church that
the WCC Assembly of 1998 (its fiftieth anniversary) would be held in Bucharest.

Bria, furthermore, has no word of understanding or reconciliation for the Greek Catholic
Churches (or Uniates) and accuses them of proselytism; he revives the charge of their "dubious origins"
almost three centuries ago and shows no sympathy for the violation of their human rights. What is
indisputable is that the Greek Catholic Church suffered more than any other church under the
communist tyranny and its leaders were models of courage and faith. Many of their leaders died in
prison and approximately 2,000 Greek Catholic churches were taken over by the Orthodox. There is no
question but that a serious dialogue is necessary with the Orthodox to bring about forgiveness, healing,
and reconciliation between these two communities and to facilitate the return of hundreds of former
Greek Catholic churches which are under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church but not used. The
Greek Catholics highly esteem the Orthodox Metropolitan Nicolae Corneanu for the compassion that he
has revealed to them and for the churches that he has returned.

Bria is also very disturbed about the criticism expressed by one of the Baptist leaders in Romania
over the possibility of an Orthodox believer becoming the president of the country, and he is concerned
about the influx of western evangelists and missionaries which he maintained had brought "a destructive
form of populist proselytism." There is no credible study which supports his conclusion on this matter. It
is most unfortunate that he misses the opportunity to reach out to the evangelical movement in Romania
which is the largest in Europe with the exception of Russia and has many members who would welcome
better relationships with the Orthodox Church. Furthermore, the World Council of Churches is making
serious attempts to establish working relationships with evangelicals throughout the world, and direct
contacts were made with the Romanian Pentecostalists in 1995. It is important to note that this movement
includes churches (Adventist, Baptist, Brethren, and Pentecostal) which have long been marginalized and
oppressed not only under the communists but also in the interwar period when the Orthodox Church
was the national church. Now these churches fear that this could occur in the post-communist era as well.
There are still Orthodox leaders who use inflammatory language and refer to these churches as sects and
cults and call their members heretics who are subversive of the true faith and the nation. Some of Bria's
comments could too easily be interpreted in this manner. At no point does he affirm that the evangelicals,
too, are members of the people of God. The time has come when there needs to be a careful assessment of
Orthodox - Evangelical relationships in Romanian history as well as at the present time in order to bring
about forgiveness, healing, and reconciliation between these two communities.
 Some of the evangelical groups have existed in Romania for more than a century but, due to the
political and ecclesiastical pressures under which they found themselves, assumed a very low profile. In
the years immediately following the overthrow of the Ceausescu regime some of the western evangelicals
about whom Bria complains were able to assist the Romanian evangelicals for the first time, but it is
important to note that most of the western evangelicals are very responsible in their activities and have
also been involved in extensive humanitarian projects which have provided invaluable support to the
marginalized members of the Romanian society. The flamboyant western evangelists who appeared in
Romania in 1990-92 have left for other arenas, but the Romanian evangelicals are motivated by a
profound missionary imperative and have every right to share their understanding of the "good news"
with their neighbors who are part of that large number of "agnostic" Romanians about whom Bria writes;
indeed Bria is inspired, possibly by their zeal, to call upon Orthodox believers to a renewed
understanding of mission, "to participate in making the gospel a concrete reality in human history, to see
the transforming power of grace in society, to experience the therapy of the Word of God." There is far
more that the Christian communities in Romania have in common than what separates them, and the
Romanian society presents them with a complex of challenges which they can scarcely begin to meet even
if they were fully united much less alone.

There is a summer seminar held annually at the Black Sea University entitled Encounter of
Religions in the Black Sea Area which brings many young people together from the Romanian
Orthodox Church as well as from the ethnic and religious minorities. These young people have been
amazed to discover how much they have in common. Their evaluations have indicated that at the
seminar they had a unique opportunity to have their consciousness raised and informed regarding the
issues that divide them, they had their understanding of democracy deepened, they encountered one
another at the personal level and became friends, they learned from each other, they challenged one
another to be sure but also in unforeseen ways they were enriched by other faith perspectives and
liberated from false views of their neighbors, and unexpectedly they came to appreciate and respect one
another. Indeed, they sensed a oneness that they never knew existed. They have worked together on a
common ecumenical project in which they ministered to some of the neediest members of the Romanian
society. The religious leaders need to learn from the experience of these young people to overcome their
prejudices and misunderstandings and to enter into meaningful forms of dialogue with one another.

Bria recognizes that, difficult as it might be, the Orthodox Church must learn to live with ethnic
and religious pluralism. He also observes that being the church of the majority places a unique
responsibility on the Romanian Orthodox Church, and he stresses that "it must be open to others, willing
to understand others and to receive gifts from them, to pray and learn from one another." He still would
like to assume, however, that Orthodoxy is the "essential core of the Romanian cultural patrimony" and
that the Orthodox Church is the "defining institution for the historical continuity and spiritual unity of
the country." It is obvious that there will need to be a very careful dialogue with the minority churches
regarding this aspect of his ecumenical vision. He concludes his work on this note: that there is "good
precedent" for the hope "that the stone rejected by the builders will some day prove to be the cornerstone
of the building."

What the minority churches are waiting for, however, are not merely ecumenical professions or
proclamations and subtle forms of Orthodox triumphalism but authentic ecumenism in actual practice
and in substantive ways. It was the hope of the minorities that there would be a new understanding of
the churches and their freedom in a democratic Romania which would enable all of them (majority and
minorities alike) to make their maximum contributions to the "soul" of a pluralistic Romania so that they
could fully cooperate as equals before the law and the state to bring about the creation of a just, civil, and
transfigured society. Unquestionably the minorities, too, should be given the opportunity to tell their
story and share their vision--just as Professor Bria was--in the Gospel and Cultures series published by
the World Council of Churches.
Dr. Earl A. Pope, Professor Emeritus

Lafayette College