Orthodoxy and Ecumenism.
Towards an Active Metanoia1
I will try to present in compressed form some findings of my previous research project
which will also appear this year in the form of a book (published by Peter Lang)
entitled ‘Orthodoxy and ecumenism. Towards an active metanoia’. In this project, I
sought to identify and outline paradigms that would serve the relationship between
Orthodoxy and ecumenism – paradigms that would enable a more plenary
ecumenical operation, with a different ethos and changed parameters, especially as
regards the participation of the Orthodox Church.
My research focused on the rapport between the Orthodox tradition and identity and
the ecumenical practice of engagement with other Christian traditions. This
relationship has for a long time been compromised by an underlying tension, as the
Orthodox have chosen to participate in ecumenical encounters while - often at the
same time - denouncing the ecumenical movement as deficient and illegitimate. This
relationship proved to be all the more inconsistent since the core of Orthodoxy as
professed by the Orthodox is precisely that of re-establishing the unity and catholicity
of the Church of Christ. The Orthodox Church views itself as 'the right Church' in
opposition with non-Orthodox traditions, viewed as imperfect or flawed.
Consequently, Orthodox ecclesiology often places these traditions outside the
boundaries of the Church - until such time as they have returned to the correct
Orthodox faith. If this however is the fundamental calling of the Orthodox, it informs
their identity as essentially a Church of exploration, of engagement and dialogue, a
Church committed to drive all other traditions - but also itself back to the 'right'
primordial faith.
Indeed, the Orthodox Church sees its role in the Christian world as ‘special’ and
prophetic, since it alone has remained the faithful carrier and witness of the full truth
of faith, and so has the task of calling back all stranded Christian groups to the one
original Church. The truth of the Church has been preserved unchanged with the
1
Presentation delivered at the inaugural conference of the International Orthodox Theological Association
(IOTA) in Iaşi, Romania, January 2019.
purpose not only of preserving the fullness of Christ’s truth for the salvation of its
local communities, but also to render the Church as a ‘seed’, a ‘matrix’, a durable
paradigm that will allow separated non-Orthodoxy to return to the structures, ethos
and doctrine of the original Church of apostolic times. Orthodoxy has not safeguarded
the truth of Christ’s Church from the other Christians who are seen as having departed
from it and chosen less perfect ways, but, in a sense, for them.
The Orthodox are then often caught in the dialectic of guarding the truth of faith as it
has been inherited from the early Church and fiercely rejecting any other perception
or perceived innovation - while at the same time feeling it belongs naturally at the core
of any ecumenical process, as intrinsically urged by their own identity. This
'existential' tension between Orthodox tradition/identity and ecumenical hands-on
engagement impairs not only the quality of ecumenical interactions but also the
Orthodox' self-understanding of their own identity, of their inner vector and vocation.
The Orthodox understand they have been keeping alive a spirit of energy and action
- a vision of Tradition as a dynamic process of continuity and renewal in the Holy
Spirit. This understanding of Tradition prevents an understanding of Orthodoxy as
an institution confined to the past.
I thus began my exploration by addressing what appears increasingly to be a
fundamental tension in the vision that the Orthodox have of themselves in relation to
other Christian traditions. On the one hand, there is an Orthodox distrust and
indifference towards whatever is located outside the Church. On the other hand, there
is the huge responsibility and mission of keeping the structure and tradition of the
original Church of Christ, as a salvific platform for an eventually reunited Church and
for the whole of humankind. Safeguarding this inheritance is a matter of identity for
the Orthodox and they see their role as being of crucial importance.
A novel approach seems to be necessary regarding the way the Orthodox understand
Orthodoxy in relation to the rest of the world. My study has proposed that, if the
Orthodox often find themselves today in a position of ‘reserved conservatism’, they
ought to shift their perspective to one of ‘active metanoia’. The position of ‘reserved
conservatism’ implies a denial that there was ever a separation between large
communities of Christians, instead insisting that the Orthodox Church was
abandoned by groups of ‘schismatics’ or ‘heretics’. This view also implies that
everything, including the original unity, has been preserved in the Orthodox Church,
since unity in Christ can never in fact be altered. But by so doing, such an approach
places upon the non-Orthodox the full need and responsibility of actively seeking to
regain the Orthodoxy of the early Church.
A new working paradigm for Orthodoxy of ‘active metanoia’ as proposed by this study
implies a shift of stance allowing for a more transforming and repentant approach to
Church unity. Whilst still maintaining the premise that the unity of the Church means
a return to the spirit of the primordial catholic/universal Church, a return to
Orthodoxy as purified Christian life within the sacramental universe of the Church -
the new vision would propose a new set of principles or paradigms. My research has
identified four central themes for reflection, to begin with: 1. The theme of journeying
together or of the ongoing engagement, 2. the theme of unity as core of Christian life and
identity, 3. The theme of ecumenism as spiritual enterprise, and 4. The theme of ecumenism as
a koinonia of diversities. I will say a few words now about each of these themes or
paradigms.
When reflecting on the journey together, I focused on an image of ‘journey’ that would
describe and define both the realities of Orthodoxy and ecumenism. A traditional
journey metaphor for the early Church, which was referred to as ‘The Way’, faithfully
renders the continuous and eminently dynamic nature of faith, its character as a
progress, and the necessarily action-based quality of Christian life. Very importantly,
the call to Orthodoxy is addressed primarily to the Orthodox. It is not an admonition
addressed only to the non-Orthodox, for that might give the Orthodox a false
presumption that their own call to Orthodoxy had somehow been fulfilled and no
further action from them was required. Ecumenism too should be seen as an ongoing
journey, a constant aspect of theology, since its goal has been and will always be to
‘maintain unity and to counter division.’2
2 Gillian R. Evans, Method in Ecumenical Theology: The Lessons So Far (Cambridge: CUP, 1996), p. 19.
My proposal is that the reality of Orthodoxy should be seen in association with the
concept of theosis/deification. If the calling of the Orthodox can be seen as a
‘continuous conversion of the Orthodox to a permanently purified Orthodoxy,’3 then
this same quest is that envisaged by theosis, which directs all the faithful towards an
increasingly intimate life with God in the Holy Trinity. Like deification, Orthodoxy is
a continuous aspiration towards a perfect Christian life, and not something that can
be fully inherited, ‘reached’ or ‘possessed’ – an appropriated state or reality. Moreover
(and most importantly), according to Orthodox theology the search for deification
cannot be self-orientated, as the salvation of others is as important as one’s own
salvation. The Church as the community of the faithful has been described as a
‘communion of deification’. 4 This communion of deification refers first to the
proximate community of one’s local Church, or, as is the case of the Orthodox Church,
to the eucharistic network of local Churches, but extends also to the wider world. Such
a vision is grounded in Trinitarian theology, seeing mankind as ‘one being but multi-
hypostatic, just as God is One Being in Three Persons.’5
This vision of a continuous journey places ecumenism, as the deeply felt aspiration
towards the unity and catholicity in the whole Christian Church, in a category akin to
theosis. Ecumenism should no longer be viewed primarily as an achieved/achievable
reality, but as a continuous journey towards and alongside its internal goal. Such a
view would oppose any programmatic ecumenism, working for the achievement
through various stages of a clearly structured and defined plan. I have identified
ecumenism as being eternally in a ‘pre-ecumenical’ stage, since the perennial task of
theology is to counter divisions in the Church. The fact that ecumenism is not
presented as an ‘achievable’ state may sound disheartening, but ecumenism should
be regarded instead as both real and accomplished whenever the dynamics of an inter-
Christian encounter or dialogue come into action. Ecumenism exists and is an inner
3 Report of an Inter-Orthodox Consultation of Orthodox WCC Member Churches which took place after the
Canberra assembly, in Chambesy, Switzerland in 1991. In ‘The Orthodox Churches and the World Council of
Churches’, in Limouris, Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism, p. 194.
4 Georgios I. Mantzaridis, The Deification of Man. St Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition (Crestwood:
St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984), p. 57.
5 Archimandrite Sophrony, His Life is Mine (London and Oxford: Mowbrays, 1977), p. 88.
part of Christian life and praxis, it is one of the core calls of theology calling all
humanity to catholicity in Christ.
I also addressed the theme of unity as the core of Christian life and identity. While the
duty ‘to achieve the visible unity of Christians is the same for all’, as said by Patriarch
Daniel of Romania, this is because ‘love is a matter of identity for Christians.’6 In the
words of Professor Ioan Sauca, ‘he who will stop praying for the “unity of all” is
denying his own Orthodox identity’.7 The views of contemporary Greek theologian,
Metropolitan John Zizioulas are also useful, as he emphasises the ontological
importance of catholicity as a central aspect of the Church, actualized in the world
through the mystery of the Eucharist. 8 Of particular relevance to the ecumenical
context is the intrinsic drive with which the Church seeks to be universal, as well as
the cosmic all-embracing character of its catholicity. The catholicity of the Church is
understood as what the Orthodox/Christians are, as their very identity, which brings
the aspiration towards unity and any ecumenical endeavour closer to the ‘intimate’
life of the Church. Ecumenism, as an aspiration towards catholicity, becomes a day-
to-day concern and a matter of essential importance for the life of all the faithful.
In my study I then proceeded to address the paradigm of unity as a koinonia of
diversities. A number of Orthodox perspectives propose the Orthodox ‘federative’
model of an assembly of local Churches and communities as a model for a possible
future ecumenical reality. Referring to a ‘theoretical’ integration of non-Orthodox
communities into the Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware emphasized that
‘Orthodoxy desires their reconciliation not their absorption.’ 9 I have identified this
antinomy ‘reconciliation’ versus ’absorption’ as very important, since the Orthodox
(and no doubt other Christian bodies) deeply resent any idea of a merged uniformity.
The Orthodox greatly value their principle of federated autocephalies/autonomies
and are each keen to preserve their cultural and ethnic character. It can thus be argued
6 Daniel Ciobotea (Metropolitan), Confessing the Truth in Love. Orthodox Perceptions of Life, Mission and Unity (Iasi:
Trinitas, 2001), pp. 59–60.
7 Ioan Sauca, ‘The Church Beyond Our Boundaries. The Ecumenical Vocation of Orthodoxy’, in The Ecumenical
Review 56:2 (2004), 211-225, p. 224.
8 John D. Zizioulas, Being as communion. Studies in the personhood of the Church (Crestwood: St Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1997), pp. 158–169.
9 Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, The Orthodox Church (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1964), p. 317.
that the Orthodox understanding of an ecumenical unity in diversity is informed by
their own varied context and experience.
Sauca proposes an image of diversity grounded on the Orthodox iconographic
depiction of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, not as an amorphous mass,
but as separate tongues of fire on each of the Apostles. The Holy Spirit is received as
individual gifts which work together in a beneficial and enriching ‘complementarity’,
an image ultimately related to the Trinitarian model. This is the image which the
Orthodox Church applies to its own internal tension between unity and diversity, and
this complementary plurality of gifts is seen itself as a great gift and benefit for the
Church.
Such a vision is of particular importance to the ecumenical participation of the
Orthodox, since it enables them to envisage Orthodoxy as an ‘open’ structure that can
benefit from an enlarged diversity and an extended catholicity. This sort of diversity
would preserve intact the historical, cultural and local character of the manifold
Church communities, while attaining a communion centred around the sacramental
reality of the Eucharist. The model can also constitute a constructive vision for the
wider ecumenical scene since it proposes a structure of diversity that need not imply
‘a death and rebirth of forms of Church life,’10 but rather a reconciliation on the basis
of common doctrine and life.
The Thesis
When reflecting on the above themes, I identified an important common theological
thread which links them, in that all these themes relate to a more profound spiritual
vision, to what it means to be human and/or Christian, to what humans are called to
become, to the way they live in relation to the world and to their fellow human beings.
This underlying and overarching vision presents life as praxis, something dynamic
and participatory, continuously aspiring towards spiritual betterment and a fuller
communion with other human beings, and springs from a theological understanding
of the Trinity, from the vision of humanity as one ‘multi-hypostatic being’.
10 New Delhi Statement on Unity, and Orthodox Response Third Assembly of the WCC, New Delhi, 1961.
Accessed on the WCC website on 1 September 2013, http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/crete-02-e.html
Staniloae employs the concept of ‘human consubstantiality’, whereby he attempts to
project the Trinitarian concept of ‘perichoresis’ (mutual indwelling, or
‘interpenetration’) into a human context. Staniloae speaks of each person rejoicing in
the gifts and successes of the others, a mutual human ‘complementarity’, a beneficial
sharing of gifts within the community, a joyful exchange of each other’s competencies.
However, this way of relating to other human beings, this event of communion,
cannot be realized as the achievement of an individual, according to Zizioulas, but
only as an ‘ecclesial fact’. 11 The Church represents an ‘existential’, essential part of
human life, and any life that lacks an ‘ecclesial’ dimension is consequently to be seen
as deficient or incomplete. It needs to be emphasized that ‘human consubstantiality’
is not merely a model or a parallel mode of existence to the Trinitarian one, but is in
fact intimately connected to the life of the Holy Trinity. In Ciobotea’s words: ‘Church
in its quality of Icon of the Holy Trinity is not built-up as an icon, in parallel or
independent of the Holy Trinity, but as participation in the Trinitarian life and as
reflection in the world of this participation.’12
Thus, if Orthodoxy is a journey, it is made eternal by the continuous ceaseless rotation
of Trinitarian self-giving. It cannot be a journey in isolation, but only in and aspiring
towards catholicity in communion. It is a journey made by participating in God’s life,
by entering the life of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, it is a journey deeply connected to
the ecclesial life of the Church, deeply rooted in its sacraments. It is a journey that does
not stop at any level, but surpasses any limit, border or barrier, be it temporal,
geographical, social or psychological. This is understood to be the fundamental
essential drive of all Christian life.
The question that underpinned and drove my research was: Why do the Orthodox
participate in the ecumenical movement, and how can they negotiate an involvement
in the ecumenical movement, together with their non-Orthodox counterparts -
considering that the Orthodox see their Church as the one and only Church? The
answer I propose is that the Orthodox should participate in ecumenical encounters
because they see their aspiration towards a constantly out-reaching communion with
11 Zizioulas, Being as Communion, p. 15.
12 Ciobotea, Confessing the Truth in Love, p. 71.
their fellow consubstantial humans as their very life and identity as Christians and as
human beings, according to the model of the Triune God. Attempts towards
communion can be sustained if they rest on that ‘sacramental’ (not ‘sentimental’) love
which is fuelled by a full and continuous immersion in the liturgical life of the Church.
The fact that the Orthodox see their Church as the only true Church should not deter
them from joining ecumenical encounters, but, on the contrary, should motivate them
even more, since alongside this great privilege of membership runs also the heavy and
unique responsibility of gathering together the whole world into the one Body of
Christ.
The model of the Trinity should be the starting point of all Orthodox theology,
particularly in ecumenical contexts. It should not merely constitute a ‘mental’ picture,
a ‘philosophical’ projection, but a state, an attitude based on an active ‘reaching out’,
on genuine prayer and humility, on patience and perseverance. An attitude which is
active in faith, as God Himself is outreaching Action and a Breaker of barriers. An
attitude which is prayerful and humble, as it involves a transformational
transfigurative endeavour based on the encounter with the Trinity, through Christ, in
the sacramental life of the Church; patient and persevering, as all aspects of Christian
life – deification or koinonia, even Orthodoxy and ecumenism – are not breakthroughs
or accomplishments, but ongoing processes, ever-aspiring towards perfection.
