orthodox handbook on ecumenism - wcc version-finalconvert

(105) THE LAITY AS AN ORTHODOX ECUMENICAL CONCERN

Fr. Vasileios Thermos

eing a lay member of the Church has been traditionally (and erroneously) considered by the folk as a lack, as a quality that is marked by something missing. Lay faithfuls quite often distinguish themselves from clergy by attributing to the ordained members of the Church a property which the former do not possess. This attitude eventually results to clericalism, a stance that undermines the very meaning of the Church.

It has not been a coincidence that voices who favor the upgrading of lay members of the Church inside the orthodox world have remarkably increased since the theological renewal of the second half of the twentieth century. Such a revision has been possible only by revisiting patristic sources and by re-interpreting them in the light of ecclesiology. Yet theory has not adequately turned into actual reality of the Churches. The eccle-siological turn of theology still waits for its implementation.

A. The gift of being a lay member of the Church

Early Christian sources highlight the position of lay members of the Church by declaring the nature of their Chrismation as an ordination. What follows after the sacrament of Baptism which makes the gate for a new Christian to enter the Body of Christ, is the gift of the Holy Spirit. By this sacrament one becomes a bearer of divine grace, albeit in the form of a seed which is expected to be cultivated with awe and attention throughout life so that it can grow and give fruits in the form of virtues.

Thus, during the rst centuries, the newly enlightened through the Baptism was ordained by the bishop into the order of laity, at the beginnings by his hand and later till now by the holy myrrh. It is by virtue of this ordination that the new member of the Church participates in the Eucharist. Actually the Eucharist is being celebrated in front of the ordained gifted faithfuls, by them, and for them.

The areopagitic writings epitomize: Next, they throw garments, white as light, over the man initiated... But the perfecting unction of the Myrrh makes the man initiated of good odour, for the holy perfecting of the Divine birth unites those who have been perfected to the supremely Divine Spirit... At the conclusion of all, the Hierarch calls the man initiated to the most Holy Eucharist, and imparts to him the communion of the perfecting mysteries.1 The process was similar to that of ordination: liturgical prayers of initiation with bishops hand on the head, vesting, kiss, participation in the Eucharist as a member of the appropriate order.

As an ordained member the lay Christian becomes an indispensable part of the integral ecclesiastical Body and is invited to contribute to its health and progress. All ordinations nd their place into the Eucharist as it is still today the case with the three highest ecclesiastical diakonias (bishop, presbyter, deacon), because it is in the Eucharist that they are justi ed and they derive their very meaning; thus there has been a distortion with serious theological and psychological impacts that the sacraments of Baptism and Chrismation have nowadays been disconnected from the Eucharist.

B. The aim of the gift: worship, unity, mission

A divine gift is never bestowed without a purpose; the assignment now is three-fold. All three tasks serve the glory of God and the salvation of the world.1 Dionysius Areopagite, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 2, II, 8.

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

696 Chapter (105)

First, the new members of the Church are invited to join the full worship, without the limitations applied in their previous status as catechumenoi. They are welcomed in the kiss of peace by the present congregation, they are expected to hear the liturgical prayers and respond to them loudly together with the people of God, and they are invited to participate in the Holy Sacraments. By doing so what becomes manifest is that they are in communion with the entire Church, that they have been blessed by the fullness of grace, and that they start now proclaiming in worship the Kingdom of God and the Lords Cross and Resurrection.

Second, a major consequence of worship is unity. A certain degree of unity is required in order someone to be allowed to participate in worship, but a true worship, in Spirit, further strengthens unity. The new members of the Church have been credited with the duty to preserve unity in all their thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and are fully responsible for wounds in unity that occur because of their own faults. Even when disruptive conditions take place in the ock, one is responsible to intervene and try to restore them, obviously with respect to ones age, abilities, diakonias, and context.

Unity has two dimensions: unity of love (disrupted by indifference, prejudice, exploitation, resentment, hate etc.) and unity of truth (disrupted by heresy). Both are subject to the responsibility of the laity, therefore they are called to be vigilant in their hearts and their minds. The task of unity is not limited in the Churchs interior; instead lay members of the ecclesiastical body should pray and long for the unity of all, and never forget the Lords vision and wish that they be one (John 17: 11). Saint Paul in 1 Cor 12: 12-27 describes vividly the idea that Church makes the uni ed Body of Christ, a schema from which personal responsibility stems.

The various differences among the members of the Church (personal, ethnic, cultural etc.) are a detail compared to our embodiment into the mystical Body of Christ. Saint Basil the Great put it: Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has deigned to style the universal Church of God His body, and has made us individually mem-bers one of another, has moreover granted to all of us to live in intimate association with one another, as be ts the agreement of the members. Wherefore, although we dwell far away from one another, yet, as regards our close conjunction, we are very near.2

Third, mission complements what was described above, by being an active journey in the world in order to continue the work of Christ. Missionary work has historically been undertaken by both clergy and lay members of the Church, and the latter have greatly contributed to the expansion of the Church. This mission, in any of its various forms (preaching, catechesis, philanthropy, justice, asceticism, sanctity), re ects the testimony of Lords witnesses throughout His world. Thus mission makes a genuine product of the self-consciousness of chrismated faithfuls that they are valuable members of His Body and that they share the same desire for His beloved creation.

C. Shortcomings and misperceptions inside the Orthodox Churches

The Orthodox Churches have experienced a variety of painful historical adventures which have left their marks in mentalities and practices. The position and the mission of lay members of the Church have de nitely been a victim in those accidents.

The word laikos a layman in the East c. A.D. 300 still meant one of the People (laos) of God, with all the rights and high duties and destinies that implied. By c. A.D. 450 it had almost come to mean profane as opposed to sacred.3 This has been a serious shift with lasting consequences that have not been adequately estimated so far.

The theology of Baptism and Chrismation does not support this old turn that exerts its impact even on our era. According to Saint Gregory the Theologian, there are no prohibited areas for the faithful: As long as you are a Catechumen you are but in the porch of religion; you must come inside, and cross the court, and observe the Holy Things, and look into the Holy of Holies, and be in company with the Trinity. Great are the 2 Basil, To the bishops of Italy and Gaul concerning the condition and confusion of the Churches, 1. 3 Gregory Dix The shape of the liturgy, (Dacre Press, 1952) 480.


Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism

Vasileios Thermos 697

interests for which you are ghting, great too the stability which you need. Protect yourself with the shield of faith.4 Namely, with both the quality of the chrismated one and with the active faith.

Although lay Orthodox Christians participate in various ecclesiastical activities and essentially help the Church carry out particular tasks, the underlying idea about their ecclesiological status seems to fall short of the theological standards. Many lay members of the Church think of their marginalization as quite natural, as the way it should be, as almost a revealed truth and a divine will. This misperception is part of a customary way of thinking in our Church throughout centuries, which is poorly informed by historical knowledge or does not consider it necessary. Clergy share the basic responsibility for this misperception, as they continue teaching, through words and deeds, the laitys marginalization.

Worship and ecclesiastical life seem to follow the same monopoly of the clergy, in terms of depriving the lay members of the Church of their appropriate contribution. In the vast majority of cases worldwide the lay congregation do not chant or recite together, leaving this task to their representatives, chanters or choirs, which frequently turn to behave as mere professionals, isolated from the body and ignoring their assignment. Meanwhile decision-makers in the Church are almost exclusively priests and basically bishops, thus forming a condition that reasonably discourages the lay members of the Church from caring about their own Church and from dedicating themselves to her progress. As worship is the central function of the Church, its defects in uence all other aspects of ecclesiastical life, so it is not to wonder why those two fundamental dysfunctions coexist. Persons who lack the self-consciousness of having been blessed by the ordination of Holy Spirit tend to behave in withdrawal or reluctance too when liturgical praxis or administrative issues are at stake. So the Church and her tasks have become a business for the experts.

A renewal of the position and mision of the lay members of the Church unavoidably gets through the rediscovering of Holy Chrismation. Such a movement will for sure require drastic changes in the way our Churches worship and are organized. Lay theologians (theology remains today the only aspect of ecclesiastical life which has not succumbed to clericalism) are capable of contributing essentially to this indispensable renewal.

D. Implications for ecumenical activity

The rst and fundamental implication for ecumenical life and activity is that a local Orthodox Church whose the lay members have regained their proper status prays far more for the unity of all. When the awareness of the gift of the Holy Spirit is alive, prayer becomes one of His fruits. And the more the heart is motivated by the Spirit, the more inclusive prayer is.

Ecumenical activity has now informed academic curricula, but it still does not seem linked to the sacrament of Chrismation. However, to the degree this activity is pneumatologically founded it can be more reliable in its didactic and ecumenical aims. A deepening into the theology of Chrismation will pave the way for a solid ecumenical work (as this task should not be reduced to only sentimental motivations), and will make the com-mon effort safer and more effective. The vivid feeling and voice of a living Body inspired by the Spirit will bring fresh air into an ecumenism that has somehow been stagnated among experts.

Besides, a long experience has shown that strong resistances against ecumenical activity have developed across Orthodox Churches. Parts of the ecclesiastical body refuse to accept efforts for dialogue and coopera-tion, and sometimes tend to react with a dynamism that is fueled by suspicion. An appropriate ecclesiastical response to these opponents has not to be merely defensive but to resort to applied theology. By fostering structures and habits in the Church which are in resonance with her theological inheritance on Holy Spirit and on human nature, we put aside secularized habits accumulated through centuries and we discover the core of ecclesiastical experience. Actually by doing so we allow more space for the Holy Spirit to act, as unity of all is His very mission and wish. 4 Gregory the Theologian The Oration on Holy Baptism, 16.



698 Chapter (105)

Bibliography

Nikolai Afanassieff, Ministry of the Laity. http://philotimo-leventia.blogspot.gr/2011/02/ministry-of-laity-by-fr-n-afanassieff.html (last accessed September 2013).

Radu Bordeianu, Staniloae, Dimitru: An Ecumenical Ecclesiology (T&T Clark, 2011)Paul Evdokimov, The Struggle with God. (Paulist Press, 1966). Alexander Schmemann, Clergy and Laity in the Orthodox Church. www.schmemann.org/byhim/clergyandla-

ityinthechurch.html (last accessed 19 September 2013) Alexander Schmemann, Of Water and the Spirit: A Liturgical Study of Baptism (St Vladimirs Seminary Press,

1974)Alexander Schmemann, Church, World, Mission (St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1979)Anthony Scott (Ed.), Good and Faithful Servant: Stewardship in the Orthodox Church (St Vladimirs Semi-

nary Press, 2003)


(106) WOMEN IN CHURCH AND SOCIETY AS AN ECUMENICAL ISSUE

Eleni Kasselouri-Hatzivassiliadi

Women in Church and society has been one of the main areas of concern in the ecumenical movement from its very beginning.

At the world conference on Faith and Order (1927), seven women presented a statement demanding that the issue of womens participation be central in the life and work of the World Council of Churches (WCC). Before the WCCs 1st Assembly (Amsterdam 1948) a questionnaire was sent out to obtain information about the life and work of women in the churches. In Evanston (1954) the will clearly existed to help women nd the right balance between their family responsibilities and their professional life. It was in 1974 at the womens consultation in Berlin on sexism in the 1970s, in preparation of the WCCs Nairobi Assembly, where the structures of injustice and sexism in the Church were fundamentally challenged. The problem of sexism in the Church was dealt in a study on the Community of women and men in the Church. The crucial aspect of this study was that it focused not on what Christian men and women ought to think, but on their experience. This priority especially on womens experience was given mostly in the WCC activities and programs that followed.

The development of feminist theologies in the 70s created a worldwide ecumenical network of systematic scholarship. The biblical and ecclesiological dimension of this systematic work has clear implications for the modern ecumenical movement. According to Diane Brewster, not only has received historical tradition about patterns of ministry and leadership been challenged by feminist scholars (and has obvious relevance to the debate within some churches regarding the ordination of women), but there is also a creative re-visioning of what is to be church.1

Through the 80s there is an attempt to connect theology with social practice. There is study of issues of women and work, women in poverty, and violence against women. The WCC declared the Ecumenical Decade of the Churched in Solidarity with women (EDCSW) from 1988 to 1998. A major post-decade initiative, On being Church: Womens voices and visions sought to sustain solidarity noting that the mid-Decade teams heard not only stories of violence and exclusion, but also stories of women standing in solidarity with each other, of their commitment to their churches and their efforts to develop their own ways of being church together.

There has been a vivid yet not enough work and involvement of Orthodox women in raising issues of womens participation, human sexuality and ministry in the Orthodox Church, since the rst ecumenical study on women in the church was presented to the inaugural Assembly of the WCC in 1948, through the Istanbul Consultation held in May 1997, the presentation of the EDCSW to the 8th WCC Assembly in Harare (1998), and the participation in the 9th Assembly of WCC, Porto Alegre (2006).

In this historical and theological journey, one has to observe certain crucial moments. In 1976, 40 participants arrived at the Agapia Monastery for the rst Orthodox Womens Consultation to discuss their participation in the Orthodox Church. As Elizabeth Behr-Sigel observed some years later: for the rst time in Christian history women were called to re ect together, in dialogue with bishops and theologians, on their vocation and speci c ministry.

One of the main themes and obstacles in ecumenical dialogue was and still is the ordination of women. The position of the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches has been unchanged. In 1988 the Orthodox churches held a Consultation in Rhodes to set out their reasons for maintaining the unbroken tradition of the Church. However, the 25th conclusion of the consultation points out and admits that: while recognizing these 1 Theology, Feminist, Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, Nicholas Lossky, Jose Miguez Bonino, John Pobee, Tom F. Stransky, Goffrey Wainwright, Pauline Webb (eds.), (WCC Publications, Geneva 2002), 1114.



700 Chapter (106)

facts, which witness to the promotion through the Church of the equality of honor between men and women, it is necessary to confess in honesty and with humility, that, owing to human weakness and sinfulness, the Christian communities have not always and in all places been able to suppress effectively ideas, manners, customs, historical developments and social conditions which have resulted in practical discrimination against women. This is maybe the most sincere conclusion of the conference and a starting point for re ection.

The consultation in Rhodes opened the debate on the arguments against and for the ordination of women. Elisabeth Behr-Sigel and Kallistos Ware in their book The ordination of women in the Orthodox Church have made a sincere effort to provide a response. After outlining the historical context, Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, a well-known ecumenical gure, philosopher and theologian, describes the ups and downs of the dif cult growth of consciousness, coupled with a creative return to the sources of genuine ecclesial Tradition called for by frank ecumenical dialogue. On the other hand, Kallistos Ware, Bishop of Diokleia, sets the question of the ordination of women in the light of patristic anthropology and Orthodox theology.

In the period during the Ecume nical Decade Churches in Solidarity with Women (1988-1998) two main gatherings were held among many other Bossey Seminars and inter-Christian meetings. The rst was hosted by the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East in Damascus (1996), and the second by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in Istanbul (1997), both under the theme: Discerning the Signs of the Times (Matt. 16:3): Women in the life of the Orthodox Church. The nal documents re ect the fact that: there are some occasions when the role and the presence of women, as well as their work, is not always validated for the value it has.we recognize with deep concern how social injustices such as poverty, illiteracy and invisibility may affect Orthodox women and women in general in our part of the world.

After the EDCSW, in the frame of the WCC Programme Womens Voices and Visions on being Church, Orthodox women had the opportunity to discuss and re ect not only in their context but also in cooperation with sisters from other Christian traditions. One of the many meetings between 2000 and 2005 was held in Geneva from 11-16 October 2001. Thirteen Orthodox women from Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Lebanon, Romania, the USA, and the WCC gathered together. Throughout the four days they discussed their under standing of the Church. As in previous meetings held in Greece, Istanbul, Damascus/Syria, Rumania etc, their concerns and expectations regarding their churches and the ecumenical movement were re ected in the following:

They encouraged Orthodox women theologians, historians, sociologists, psychologists, and health-care providers to publish their writings, at the same time encouraging the editors of scholarly journals to be more receptive to their research and writings.

Depending on geographical location, many women in the Orthodox Church felt excluded from the decision-making process of the Church.

They would like to see women organize themselves on an international level into a formal network, and they would like this network to have a close relationship with the bishops and priests of the Church.

In certain contexts, women who were theologically educated had great dif culty in being appointed to positions in the Church that corresponded to their level of education.

At the end of the Programme, a small book was published in 2006 under the title Womens Voices and Visions on Being Church. Re ections of Orthodox Women.

There were three women theologians coming from different national backgrounds who contributed to this volume and shared their vision of the Church. The rst contributor is Leonie Liveris, an Australian Or-thodox theologian, well-known in the ecumenical circles as the editor of the Orthodox Bulletin Martha and Maria and her book Ancient Taboos and Gender Prejudice. Challenges for Orthodox Women and the Church. Leonie Liveris raised the question:

Can it be too bold, too modern that Orthodox Ecclesiology might begin to re-examine and renew many aspects of church life that do adversely affect the lives of women? Can there not be a new alignment of hierarchy, of including



Eleni Kasselouri-Hatzivassiliadi 701

women in decision-making in order to meet the new needs of this century acknowledging many women of faith are competent, quali ed and educated and immensely committed to their Orthodox Church? Can not the experiences of women and their knowledge of contemporary society and family life better inform the church hierarchy?.

The second woman who contributed to the publication was Teva Regule, a Rumanian Orthodox theologian and member of the editorial Board of the Bulletin St. Nina Quarterly. Regule stressed that

The Orthodox Churchs theology of God and our relationship to Him is life-giving. However, there are times when certain practices in the Church fail to re ect this life-giving theology. One area that has been particularly painful to many girls and women is the practice of only allowing males to serve within the altar in parishes. Although many bishops, priests, and theologians admit that there is no good theological reason for such a practice (women have served in the past as female deacons in Byzantium and as altar servers in Russia and elsewhere as well as in monastic settings), it persists. Within the past few years, a small number of parishes have taken tentative steps to include girls as altar servers. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this has been a welcome development in those settings. It is my fervent hope that this practice, which can have such an important impact on the spiritual development of a young girl, be allowed to continue and growWe are all called to give glory to God to the best of our abilities within the community of the Church. However, a community whose members are hurt is deformed. We need to be the Church, a therapeutic, healing community. It is then that we can experience the love of God more fully in this world as in the next.

The third contributor was Niki Papageorgiou, Professor of Sociology at the Department of Theology of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, who enquired:

Which type of woman is preferred within the frame of the ecclesiastical com mu nity, Martha or Mary? Christ seems to be accepting the second role, that of Ma ry. But the Church seems to be preferring the role of Martha. The differ-entiation of the roles of Martha and Mary re ects a struggle within the Church between institution and charisma. The institutional role of woman appe ars different from the charismatic one. The distinction between institution and cha risma -likable in the eld of Sociology- doesnt leave the Orthodox Church unaf fe cted. While the role of Mary is praised, progressively, the role of Martha seems to be getting greater importance over the centuries, following a course parallel to the one of the institutionalization of the Church. Whereas at the charismatic - theological level the equal place of Mary in the ecclesiastical community is acknowledged, at the insti tu tional-sociological level Martha survives through speci c roles, roles of discri mi nation and underestimation that become broader accepted and get established.

In the 9th Assembly of the WCC in Porto Alegre (2006), the participation of Orthodox women was more than visible. They participated as delegates, of cial observers, lectures, co-opted staff members, stewards, mutiro participants. Many factors had contributed to that progress: historical, political and economic changes, especially in Eastern Europe, which in uen ced not only the social, but also the cultural and religious reality; theological challen ges that came from other Chri stian tradi tions about the role of women in the churches and the foremost issue of wo mens ordination; many initiatives that had been taken by ecumenical bodies and organizations in the direction of encoura ging and improving the participation of women in their decision-making bodies.

The participation of Orthodox women in the 9th Assembly created a sense of optimism for the future, and on the other hand, an obligation for a deep self-criticism. But really, how much progress and change has there been in the last decades, after the Agapia Consultation (1976)? Are the changes suf cient to ensure that the progress will continue in the future?

In this frame, and in order to answer these question, a consultation was held in Volos, Greece, in June 2008 on the theme: Many Women were also therethe Participation of Orthodox women in the ecumenical move-ment organized by the WCC Programme Women in Church and Society, and hosted by the Volos Academy for Theological Studies. The Volos Consultation brought together three generations of Orthodox women: the



702 Chapter (106)

generation that worked in the EDCSW and participated in the inter-Orthodox consultation in Rhodes, the Crete Consultation, the Damascus and Istanbul conferences; the generation that continued with the WCC Programme Womens Voices and visions on being church; and last, but not least, the third generation of young theologians who are active today in various ecumenical bodies, giving witness to their tradition and faith. During the Consultation, all the so-called open issues were discussed; those, in other words that require a deeper theological analysis and comprehension by the Orthodox: the revival of the female diaconate and the ordination of women, the more active participation of women in the administrative and pastoral work of the Church, the empowerment of women in theological research and study, and the language and content of some liturgical texts connected with women.

Have these concerns of Orthodox women modi ed their churches in order to reform attitudes and practices that for centuries deemed women to be the other? What kind of theological word do we need as Church? What is the role of Orthodox women theologians? How can Orthodox women discuss and answer the various questions raised or created by post-modernity that in uenced the local contexts? Where can Orthodox women theologians nd the necessary resources for empowering other women? Is there a necessity of re-discovering and re-de ning the healing witness of our written and oral tradition in order to take care of the wounds of injustice, fear and violence? How can we move from communities of authority and injustice to communities of love and respect? It is imperative that the Orthodox churches should break the silence on gender discrimination and inequality and challenge all the patriarchal ideas and stereotypes that deny women a full participation in the life of the community. The message of the good news is clear:

When anyone is united to Christ, there is a new world; the old order has gone, and the new order has already begun (II Cor. 5:17).

Bibliography

Genadios Limouris (ed.), The place of the Woman in the Orthodox Church and the question of the ordination of women, (Tertios Publications: Katerini, 1992) (in Greek).

Kyriaki Karidoyannes FitzGerald, Orthodox Women Speak. Discerning the Signs of the Times, (WCC Pub-lications & Holy Cross Orthodox Press: Geneva/Brookline, Massachusetts, 1999).

Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, The Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church, (WCC Publications: Geneva, 2000).Christina Breaban, Sophie Deicha, Eleni Kasselouri-Hatzivassiliadi (eds.), Womens Voices and Visions of the

Church. Re ections of Orthodox Women, (WCC, 2006).Leonie Liveris, Ancient Taboos and Gender Prejudice. Challenges for Orthodox Women and the Church,

(Ashgate: Hampshire, 2005).Aristotle Papanikolaou & Elizabeth Prodromou (eds.), Thinking through Faith. New Perspectives from Orthodox

Christian Scholars, (St. Vladimirs Seminary Press: Crestwood, NY, 2008).Eleni Kasselouri-Hatzivassiliadi, Fulata Mbano Moyo, Aikaterini Pekridou (eds.), Many women were also

therethe participation of Orthodox women in the ecumenical movement, (WCC & Volos Academy for Theological Study Publications: Geneva/Volos, 2010).


(107) CURRENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF HUMAN BEING AND ORTHODOX ANTHROPOLOGY

Stavros Yangazoglou

1. The Anthropology of Modernity

Modernity does not consist of simply a sociological, philosophical or political meaning. It is not characterized only by a historical period, but rather complete culture, a way of seeing and evaluating the world. This culture started creeping within the Renaissance, formed mainly by the Enlightenment, the rapid progress of science, the industrial revolution and received almost universal dimensions with the technological boom of the 20th century. Modernity gradually overturned the traditional worldview which was unaltered for centuries, and every metaphysical authority, initiating a new system of values in all elds of human life.

With sound reason and the use the empirical example as the main tools, modernity signaled a new epoch in the relationship between man and nature. The break in the assumed meanings of every mythical and religious sense brought the absolute value of scienti c knowledge and domination of man over nature to the epicenter of modernity. Knowledge and use of the natural world through scienti c knowledge attempted to demystify the phenomena of nature and replace any metaphysical preoccupation, highlighting the earthly happiness of man against religious metaphysical bliss. The transition from traditional to urban and industrialized society, the unshackling of any transcendent authority, the autonomy of the human subject, the rational criteria for understanding the human past, the secularization of society and the state, the declaration of the rights of the individual as a foundational and primary axiom, constitute some of the key features of modernity. Myth and reality, novelty became the new consciousness of man and spread to all areas of human life and culture. A modern state, secular society, dizzying scienti c progress, modernist art, music, painting, morals, ideas and values, modernity has evolved into the dominant ideology of modern man.1

However, that which makes modernity so radically different from other previous epochs is precisely that the present is now more thoroughly de ned by a secularized conception of history. The traditional history of salvation of Christianity is replaced by the progress of humanity. Time does not carry out Gods plan for the world and man, but is a purely human and worldly process. Historical time is human time par excellence. The world of history, the only intelligible world, is a creation of man. After the end of transcendence, history not only becomes autonomous and the unique world of man, but gradually replaces God.2 The declaration of the rejection of the Christian past of Europe was the primary instrument of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Seeking cultural norms beyond the medieval tradition, modernity turned rapidly to classical antiquity and yet paradoxically raised the nostalgia of this as a future realization of a fully anthropological era.

Now that man is the sole source of truth, he can recognize himself as the only God and human history as the only reality. The conquest of the world of history, the age of the image of the world, was indeed a founding principle of the new age, but also a new ontology in relations between world and man. The Cartesian version of the thinking subject has turned the world into an object of knowledge. The world is found inside man, who in this way can rightfully become its lord and master. The world became the object and man the subject, the universe was split in nature and in history, historical time is being juxtaposed to the natural world, paving the way for the tragic experience of the contrast between nature and spirit. Man, the only protagonist in the

1 For Modernity cf. Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, (Harvard University Press, Camdridge, Massachusetts 1989). For the relationship of Orthodoxy with Modernity cf. P. Kalaitzidis-N. Dontos, (eds.) Orthodoxy and Modernity (Indiktos: Athens, 2007) (in Greek).2 Cf. Kostas Papaioannou, La Conscration de lHistoire, avant-propos dAlain Pons, (ditions Champ libre, Paris, 1983).



704 Chapter (107)

theater of history, free from any metaphysical obligation, discovers endless possibilities. The dei cation of man as the purpose of history provides the only possible ontological de nition of history. History as a progressive realization of freedom is ultimately the place of the theophany of man.

2. Anthropological Aspects of Post-modernity

However, by the last quarter of the 20th century, modernity had already begun to lose its original luster and soteriological halo. The rst cracks appeared with the experience of two world wars centralized in Europe. Deadlocks multiplied with the emergence of the ecological crisis, the problems of the third world, the techno-logical revolution in cybernetics and informatics, the consumerism and the need for perpetual euphoria, and nally, the phenomenon of globalization. In the era of late modernity or post-modernity,3 the idea of a linear progression of history, the Cartesian pursuit of certain objectives, absolute faith in the imperatives of rationality, the urban culture, the nation-state (ethnic-state), the various ideologies, the visions of general wellbeing, the great narratives of humanity, the human subject, and even history itself and the time of man began to falter and reveal a great impasse and show signs of the end of an entire culture, at least in the form that modernity has lent in the last three centuries.

Now scienti c knowledge and the imposition of an absolute and objective truth about the world, man and history not only is being challenged, but is considered the same in relation to religious knowledge. Secularism is no longer seen as a development, which will inevitably eliminate the religious phenomenon, which dynam-ically and diversely reappears on the historical scene. All the fundamental imperatives of modernity, such as omnipotence of reason, the overturning of sanctity, the priority of the thinking subject, and the relationship of man with nature are being placed in an unrelenting criticism. However, a pervasive nihilism and a new fuzzy religiosity in the form of a neo-Gnosticism tend to replace both the Christian faith and the sound-mindedness of modernity. In this new understanding the almost metaphysical faith of man is perpetuated in the endless progress of technology. And while it unrestrainedly dominates the market economy and the consumer happi-ness of the masses, the practical nihilism shapes the society of indifference and automated man as an extreme individualistic conclusion of the thinking subject of modernity. In the evolving new society indifference is expressed toward any spiritual and cultural heritage of the past, and slowly but surely the new communication technologies transform the culture of reason (speech) toward a global dominance of electronic images.

But what especially characterizes the post-modern man is the anonymity of existence and of life in modern mega-cities. The modern world is a world of foreigners,4 a world in which uidity dominates and speed and fragmentation act as a catalyst in the depths of mans being. Precisely this eclipse of the subject leads many to think that the 21st century will prove to be the century of anthropology as a radical reevaluation of the unique and unparalleled value of human existence.5 Mans loneliness is accentuated by the fundamental choices of post-modernity. Indeed, the postmodern thought vehemently denied the possibility of the existence of an anthropology with universal validity for all people and for all times. The characteristic of post-mo-dernity incredulity towards meta-narratives, the proclamation of the death of grand narratives, limit the meaning of human existence to individual cultural and historical references, which are necessarily transitory 3 For a discussion of post-modernity in relation with Orthodox theology cf. Petros Vassiliadis, Post-Modernity and Church: The Challenge of Orthodoxy, (Akritas: Athens, 2002) (in Greek). Christos Yannaras, Postmodern Metaphysics, (H.C. Press, Brookline, MA 2004). Stavros Yangazoglou, Philosophy of History and Theology of History in Orthodoxy and Post-Modernity, (Hellenic Open University Press: Patras, 2008) 15-80 (in Greek).4 For the anthropological implications of post-modernity cf. Marc Aug, Non-Places; Introduction to an Anthropology of Super-modernity, (Vesro Books, London & New York, 1995), Zygmunt Bauman, Globalization: The Human Consequences, (Columbia University Press, New York, 1998).5 Kallistos Ware, Orthodox theology in the new millennium: what is the most important question? Sobornost 26:2 (2004) 7-23.



Stavros Yangazoglou 705

and disposable, each with its own dependent truths.6 Everything is relative and an interpretation of the era.7 Here emerges anew the primordial philosophical problem of the dialectic between the one and the many, the struggle between partial and universal. In the postmodern condition Squires avers that the death of Man, History and Metaphysics. This implies the rejection of all of essentialism - transcendent understanding of human nature ... man is a social, historical and linguistic structure.8 In such a perspective of degradation there exists no meaning, neither in history nor in the life of man. The point is this currency, i.e. a temporary construction of man.

This context includes the uncovering of relational postmodern anthropology and contradictions. The human subject is interpreted inter-subjectively now.9 However, his relationship with the other becomes almost impos-sible, since social structures as a ground for the emergence of relations decomposes continuously and public space has been eclipsed and subsides gradually in favor of private and consumer choices. Modern man seems to vary increasingly energized his private desire: each is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed (Jas.1, 14). The narcissism of this man of post-modernity ultimately is de ned as a self-referential anthropology of the relations between the subject with his own components.10 This brings about a regression into extreme individualism. These concepts overtly or discreetly seem to diffuse into the modern conceptions of man in philosophy, psychology, sociology, economy, as well as in biotechnological research and applications, at the same time dulling the very criteria of social justice and ethics. The practical nihilism of man exacerbates social alienation, massively expands the problem of poverty, and is unable to control or even to interpret the evil and violence from man to man or man against the natural enviroment. In order to simplify a very complex world and the acceleration of market trade, a new way of life made an appearance, changing peoples everyday lives. Human life becomes more simple and effective which, as long as each man thinks only of himself and his interests. Thus, in the era of information capitalism and mass consumption, the man without realizing it has entrusted the organization of his life and soul to the economists. Everything is subordinated to private desire, the aggressive interest of the individual. At the same time, the unde ned relationship of identity and otherness in our rapidly changing world propagates several local outbreaks of nationalism and fundamentalism.

3. Toward a dynamic and relational anthropology: the meaning of orthodox anthropology today

In times of late modernity, when all the grand narratives and traditions are in fact on the sidelines, what criti-cal and existential meaning of life for the world, man and history conveys a debate in anthropology from the standpoint of orthodox theology? Under the new environment of pluralism, Orthodox theology is called upon to articulate a resolution and meaning of life for the world, man and history. In this way, a new interpretive theory to Christian anthropology must be realized, distinguishing what is fundamental and unchanging and what is merely cultural and cosmological verbiage of a given era. In this theological hermeneutics as a re-measuring of pluralism and diversity in the ecumenical dimension, Orthodox theology must highlight the potential meaning of human existence in dialogue with the anxieties and problems of modern man.

For Orthodox theology the human is not to be de ned statically. Man is not merely biological or spiritual existence, but a being in relation and en route. The fullness of existence is not its self-referentiality but the 6 Lyotard, Jean-Franois, The Post-Modern Condition, A Report of Knowledge, (University of Minnesota Press, 1984)7 Cf. Zygmunt Bauman, Life in fragments, (Blackwell: Oxford, 1995).8 Judith Squires, Indroduction, in Judith Squires (ed.), Principled Positions. Postmodernism and Rediscovery of Value, (Lawrence and Wishart, London 1993) 2.9 Cf. Christos Yannaras, Psychoanalysis and Orthodox anthropology, in John T. Chirban (Ed.), Personhood: Orthodox Christianity and the Connection between Body, Mind and Soul, Bergin and Garvey, (Westport/Commectict/London, 1996) 83-89. Vasileios Thermos, In Search of the Person: True and False Self according to Donald Winnicott and St. Gregory Palamas, (Alexander Press: Quebec, Canada 2002).10 Christopher Lash, The Culture of Narcissism, (W. W. Norton: New York, 1978).



706 Chapter (107)

encounter and communion with the absolute Other, with an existence radically beyond and outside his own. In light of the Christology of the Church this means that man can the opening and communion of his being with the Triune God, in Christ and through the Holy Spirit. I.e. with the One Being who is communion and otherness par excellence; becoming by grace that which it is not by nature, becoming a son of God in by way of relation, and gaining a new way of being beyond decay and death. Original sin and the problem of evil in the orthodox tradition is not de ned by the concept of predestination, but the tragic exercise of human freedom.

The Metropolitan of Pergamon John Zizioulas key notes that the essence of sin is the fear of the Other, a thing which is a part of the rejection of God. If the con rmation of our self is made through the rejection rather than acceptance of others that which Adam has chosen to do freely then it is only normal and inevitable for the other to become an enemy and a threat. Reconciliation with God is a prerequisite for reconciliation with any other ... The fact that the fear of the other is pathologically inherent in our existence leads to fear not only of the other, but every otherness.11 In each case the freedom proves to be a key of anthropology.

The other is a necessary condition of my existence. But this is not for anyone else, but for the eminently Other. This means that the relationship with God and the relationship in Christ with the fellowman and the world becomes the new way of human existence, beyond his conventional and corrupted life. The Church is not just any historical institution, but becomes the eminently anthropological place and way, the eschatologi-cal root and substance of true life for humans. Modern Orthodox theology has to present hermeneutically not only the theological ontology of the person but also the conscious and free act of man, composing theory and practice, the eschatological glory of man with the ethos of ascesis and Eucharistic communion. Otherwise, such a person-centered anthropology can easily be seen as an excuse for an unhistorical escape.

In the person of Christ, man experiences theosis, transcending the boundaries of creation not only psycho-logically or naturally, but through a person.12 The link of the communion of the uncreated God and created man expressed in person, as a re ection, i.e. personal existence of God toward man as much from the bib-lical as from the patristic tradition of the image and likeness. The anthropological problem of the ontology of the person is found, moreover, in the priority and absoluteness of otherness in relation to the general, i.e. the problem of the relationship of the one and the many. The solution of this problem has been given, in patristic theology, by the Incarnation of the Son and Word of God, which is moreover an iconological and eschatological reality. The truth of the person as the ultimate truth of existence is an icon of the future in the sense that it is experienced as a dialectical relationship between the eschatological character of a person who enters into story, without being converted into history.

Christ through the Holy Spirit takes on His body, the Church, the many different human faces, and instills whatever constitutes the inseparable relationship with the way of existence of the persons of the Holy Trinity mutually co-indwelling in freedom and love. Thus, the life of every person is weaving together of freedom with love, since the cohesion does not militate against or eliminate the heterogeneity, just as different human faces do not deprive the identity from the individual and nite selves. In the society of His body, the Church, the knowledge of God is possible, which passes only through love towards each other. Without the relationship with the other the self does not exist that knows and loves God. In Christ we nd others interpersonally without being alienated, in Christ we cease to exist as enclosed and divided individualities that rush toward decay and demise, in Christ we attain to the ethos of the person, which leads that unity which possesses teaching the Holy Trinity .13 The non-static direction of the person allows the integration of the many in one Christ, making the Church the Body of Christ and each of His members becomes himself Christ and Church. This truth of the person which transcends individuality, division and death of being, is not just a conceptual and abstract metaphysical proposition, but a historical and empirical event in the life of the Church, it is the Holy Eucharist.11 John Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness, St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 38:4 (1994) 348.12 Cf. Stavros Yangazoglou, Communion of Theosis. The synthesis of Christology and Pneumatology in the work of St. Gregory Palamas (Domos: 2001) (in Greek).13 St. Isaac in the Syrian, Ascetical Orat. 22, 477.



Stavros Yangazoglou 707

Therefore, the ethos of the person and the society is not the result of a moral teaching, even the most high, but the ability and experiential achievement within a community that has become inside of history the truth of the person as an existential demeanor and attitude towards life. Man is restored as a priest and cosmic minister of Creation and of the ethos of freedom that is realized in the image of divine freedom. For Orthodox anthro-pology moral responsibility as a practical attitude with respect to history and everyday life is contained in the ethos of the Eucharistic communion and culture of the person.

At this point it is necessary to point out that descriptive anthropology and the human sciences are one thing and the work of theology another, which offers an existential interpretation of the fact of human existence, beyond objective justi cation. For Orthodox theology both the uncreated God and the created man are perceived as under-principle (lit. translation of Greek ). Man is animal being made God14 in the perspective of the dialectical relationship between created and uncreated, as manifested in Patristic Christology. Male and female, body-soul, the whole man is the image of God. He is not immortal, neither in the body nor in soul, he is immortal in the perspective of the life in Christ, when he is open to communion with others and with the eminent Other. If now in history the ontology of the human person in Christ is iconic, in a mirror, dimly (Cor. 13, 12), to the eschaton of the kingdom will the fullness of the likeness of God shall be revealed.

Bibliography

Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God, (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press 1997).Panayotis Nellas, Dei cation in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person, (Crestwood,

NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1987). Athanasios Papathanassiou, Christian anthropology for a culture of peace: considering the Church in mission

and dialogue today, in Emmanuel Clapsis (ed.), Violence and the Christian spirituality, (Geneva/Brookline: WCC/Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2007), pp. 87-106.

Vasileios Thermos, In Search of the Person: True and False Self according to Donald Winnicott and St. Gregory Palamas, (Alexander Press: Quebec, Canada 2002).

Kallistos Ware, The Human Person as an Icon of the Trinity, Sobornost incorporating Eastern Churches Review 8:2 (1986), pp. 6-23;

-, Orthodox Theology in the Twenty-First Century, Doxa & Praxis series, (WCC Publications/Volos Academy, Geneva 2012).

Stavros Yangazoglou, The person in the Trinitarian Theology of Grogory Palamas. The Palamite Synthesis of a Prosopocentric Ontology, Philotheos, International Journal for Philosophy and Theology 1 (2001),

. 137-143.Christos Yannaras, The Freedom of Morality, (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1984).-, Person and Eros, (H.C. Press, Brookline, MA, 2008).John Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church, (Darton, Longman & Todd:

London, 1985) -, Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church, (T. &T. Clark: London, 2006).

(translated by Christopher Henson)

14 St. Gregory the Theologian, Orat. On Theophania PG 36, 324, 13.


(108) ORTHODOX YOUTH IN THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT

Fr. Christophe DAloisio

The title for this short piece covers an extremely broad range of topics which could easily ll a whole book. There are a number of ways in which it could be addressed: perhaps by offering direct testimonies, or else through scienti c analysis be it historical, ecclesiological or canonical. Either way, this theme is likely to be polemical, depending on the strength and perspective of the differing points of view. The aim of our con-tribution here is certainly not to offer a de nitive opinion on Orthodox youth in the ecumenical movement. We seek rather to highlight some questions which arise both from our empirical knowledge as representative of youth movements in various ecumenical gatherings over a number of years, and from our experience as simple Orthodox believer who feels concerned about the ecclesiological challenges of today. May this short contribution be an occasion for debate between young people and their local pastoral authorities about the functioning of the local Churches, and the progress of ecumenism in other Orthodox contexts.

Orthodox Youth in the Ecumenical Movement. Wouldnt some observers be puzzled by this title? Is there an Orthodox Youth, organised as such and committed in Church life? And what possibility, if any, do they have of making a contribution in the ecumenical movement, whether in parallel with, or from within the range of of cial delegations from the Orthodox Church in ecumenical organisations?

In fact, there has been and there could still be an input from Orthodox Youth in the ecumenical movement. But in order to present our thesis, we need rst of all to clarify the terms of the title.

1. What is the Ecumenical Movement, for an Orthodox believer? This question, repeatedly raised today, has so far not found an appropriate answer for the Orthodox faithful. Of course, the big ecumenical organisations established during the 20th century appear as the major actors of the ecumenical movement today. However, one has to admit that ecumenism in the 21st century must also explore other paths beyond the recon guration of existing ecumenical organisations. It must aim to serve not the structured organisations of the current ecu-menical movement, but Christ and his Church, in the assumption of her apostolic Mission in History, towards unity and love.

In this respect, we can distinguish the Orthodox ecumenical involvement on the one hand in the integrated structures of the organised ecumenical movement (WCC, Regional Councils of Churches, National Councils of Churches, etc., all of them subject to constant recon guration in order to be closer to their initial mission), and on the other hand in informal ecumenical meetings which, in todays rapidly changing and communicating world, tend more and more to be the focus of daily grass-root ecumenism.

Furthermore, there is another aspect of ecumenical dialogue which needs to be taken into deeper consid-eration. For Orthodox Ecclesiology, any advances in the instituted ecumenical dialogues can be considered as of cial achievements only if they are received by the People of God, in the consensus delium. Recent administrative developments within the World Council of Churches (implemented for the rst time during the General Assembly in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2006, following the recommendations of the Special Commis-sion on Orthodox Participation) adopted the decision-making process through consensus, in order to foster in particular Orthodox integration into the structure of the WCC. This same decision-making process through consensus, almost imposed upon other Christians by the Orthodox, is still an unknown practice inside most of the Orthodox Churches themselves and, therefore, remains a great challenge.

Hence, a huge work is still to be done to submit the fruit of the dialogues brought by the ecumenical organisations to the reception of the consensus delium in the Orthodox Churches. Our basic knowledge of the pastoral situations in the Orthodox Church makes us quite pessimistic about such a process. Indeed, the achievements of the ecumenical dialogues need to be positively received; however, indifference is sometimes



Christophe D Aloisio 709

the best result one can expect, in several Orthodox contexts. In fact, hostile manifestations against ecumenism are quite common nowadays, coming sometimes from very prominent persons or groups in the Orthodox Church. Such attitudes are, it has to be said, rarely rejected by the pastoral authorities: this lack of disavowal could almost be seen as a negative reception.

In some Orthodox contexts today, the mere fact of mentioning the name of some ecumenical organisations or the name of the Pope of Rome is enough to create a wave of protest against any kind of brotherly contacts with non Orthodox Christians.

Consequently, in addition to the vital role which the ecumenical organisations take on, it is also crucial that committed young Orthodox people explore new ways of ecumenism which could help to achieve a positive reception of the dialogues by the entire Church body.

2. And there comes a second clari cation about our title: what is the Orthodox Youth? Ecclesiologically, the Church constituency consists of Christ as the head of the Body and the whole people of God as the rest of the Body. Within the people of God, the pastors are, among other tasks, elected to minister the unity of the whole body. In the Orthodox Church, the bishops should be seen as the pastors par excellence, not considered as individuals, of course, but surrounded by the presbyteral college of their local Church (in the sense of the episkop ), in a permanent and living conciliarity (in the sense of sobornost, simultaneously catholicity and synodality).

The ordination of bishops and presbyters among the people of God does not mean that the unity of the Church is operated only by those ministers: they are the coordinators of the work towards unity, which is a fundamental aspect of the Church, but all members of the Church are to be committed to the service of unity. Beside this differentiation between the ordained ministers and the rest of the people, there is no other order within the Church constituency; there is no Orthodox Youth as a distinct group per se, apart from the rest of the people.

However, Church pastors, when they represent their local Churches in an ecumenical dialogue, need the advice of speci c groups as representatives of the people of God: academic theologians, committed young adults, canonists and lawyers, etc., according to the type of questions which are to be discussed.

3. During the 20th century, mostly thanks to the freedom of speech which was previously not so developed in the societies where the Orthodox were living a theological renewal enabled informal groups to establish Church movements in some Orthodox contexts. The basic characteristic of a Church movement lies in the term itself: a movement moves. It tries to remove from Church life what is extrinsic to catholicity and to promote dormant aspects of the ecclesial Tradition.

The various movements which were established during the 20th century have not necessarily all had the same motivation. It is even likely that some of them have not tried to contribute to Church unity. Others, however, not only fostered dialogues, but also created spaces for dialogues when dialogues were not yet in place.

If one examines recent Church history, it appears obvious that almost all theologians of the Orthodox Church, who committed themselves to the ecumenical initiatives which founded the existing ecumenical organisations of the 20th century, were trained and sent by Church movements, mostly youth movements.

In this respect, Syndesmos, the World Fellowship of Orthodox Youth, which was established in 1953, always understood itself as an organ of dialogue between Orthodoxy and other Christians. The role played by active members of the Fellowship in various ecumenical organisations, beginning with the WCC, is far too signi cant to be expounded here. Church pastors of all Orthodox Churches relied on the zeal for unity of Syndesmos to witness Orthodox catholicity in the ecumenical movement and to provide ecumenical organisations with competent of cers and speakers. Orthodox youth was not considered merely as a category of age, but as a way of being: young Orthodox could sometimes be quite old, but with a spirit of boldness and enthusiasm which is not easy to cultivate when one has taken on of cial pastoral responsibilities. In a sense, the youth were those who were not elders (presbuteroi).

4. Today, both youth movements and of cial Church delegations have evolved to something new: the youth is now often strictly de ned by age (e.g. 15-25 or 18-30 years old); Church delegates are mostly professional Church



710 Chapter (108)

of cers, so utterly devoted to ecumenical meetings that they can not possibly be present on a regular basis in the local Churches where they are pastors. It sometimes also happens that Orthodox Churches are represented by titular bishops who, by de nition, are not ecclesiologically pastors of the respective Churches which send them.

This fact is not secondary and is only one example, among others, of awkward situations in the current ecumenical movement. It does not meet the ecclesiological requirements of Church reception: only the canon-ical single bishop of a given local Church can speak on behalf of his community. The spiritual gift to make his Church present in a dialogue of Churches is given only to him; the gift is conveyable to nobody else, even temporarily, because the gift is not an object which is held sovereignly by the bishop: it was entrusted to him by the Holy Spirit at his ordination, through the invocation of the plenary Church assembly.

Any other delegate whether an ordained titular bishop or any other deputy representative acts as repre-sentative not of the local Church, but of the canonical bishop of the local Church. Therefore, the ecumenical dialogue changes in its essence, and becomes a dialogue of individuals, not a dialogue of Churches through the charismatic ministry of their canonical local bishops strictly understood in the living conciliarity of the clergy and laity.

Another ecclesiologically puzzling situation in the representation of the Orthodox Church today in the ecumenical movement, is the fact that, despite the Orthodox ecclesiology which is strictly territorial, the ecu-menical organisations (at least, the WCC) recognise several Orthodox World Communions.

This fact is problematic for the Orthodox faithful. Indeed, there can only be either regional communions of Orthodox local Churches (i.e. Patriarchal, Autocephalous or Autonomous Churches) or a single Orthodox Church worldwide, with a single coordinator of the communion among all Orthodox Churches. Considering two or more Orthodox World Communions simply divides the Orthodox Church which is supposed to be taking part in the ecumenical movement to promote unity. If some Autocephalous Orthodox Churches have a pastoral presence outside their canonical boundaries, this should not be considered as being in accordance with Orthodox ecclesiological principles and should not last in the long-term.

If one bishop has to be considered as the single representative of the whole Orthodox Church worldwide, only the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople can be recognised as such, being the rst among all Orthodox pastors worldwide. There exist no arguments to oppose this historical and, moreover, ecclesiological fact. If there is a second bishop who claims to be a representative of an Orthodox World Communion, then any Orthodox diocesan bishop should be allowed to do so too but that of course would be absurd. Communion and conciliarity necessarily go hand in hand with the recognition of primacies.

So far, the logic of the Orthodox of cial representatives in ecumenical organisations has not been clari ed and creates confusion in the eyes of other Christians about what Orthodoxy truly is. It also gives the impression to Orthodox observers that the ecumenical organisations are sanctioning Orthodox disorder.

5. What can Orthodox movements bring to enrich the current situation in the ecumenical movement? Those who really represent speci c sensitivities in the local Churches are the Church movements, especially the youth movements, in the sense explained above, which are characterised by their boldness towards Church hierarchy a boldness which does not exclude but rather implies respect. In an ideal Church situation, those sensitivities would be conveyed by the local bishops (always serving in the conciliarity of the clergy and laity of their local Church); however, the Church situation is far from being ideal.

The palliative, which is the existence of real Youth Movements, could be terminated if the ecclesial minis-tries were aligned in reality with their theological de nition.

Until then, all ecumenical dialogues should include youth participation. That would ensure that the dialogues were public, open and closer to the reality of the local Churches.

Instead of that, one has sometimes the impression that of cial Orthodox representations take less and less into consideration organised Church movements, sometimes preventing them locally to attend ecumenical meetings.

Again, we would like to emphasise that the input of a youth movement is not to be limited to a category of age, but to a way of understanding Church realities. The youth movements have to dare to be critical towards



Christophe D Aloisio 711

their own pastors, in order to help them not to remove themselves too far from the consciousness of their local community; and pastors should be thankful to youth movements which try, with respect and love, to remind them of the challenges of the world of today. The absence of a critical view from inside the Orthodox Church would be anything but healthy for the life of the body.

The 20th century, which has been the century of all big ecumenical meetings, has also been the century of the morbid silence of some peoples from Eastern Europe during several decades. Humankind has painfully learned that not allowing critical voices can be damaging for the circulation of love in a community; allowing even very critical voices to be heard shows the wisdom of the pastors, and is a sign of the health of the whole body.

6. Let us conclude this contribution with some concrete perspectives by way of two practical suggestions. Firstly, within the ecumenical organisations, a transparent discussion should take place as to how the Orthodox Church is represented. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has to be recognised as the only competent centre of co-ordination of Orthodoxy and could then ensure that only bishops of real cities would represent the Church in ecumenical meetings. We know that tensions exist among the Orthodox hierarchies, but one has to acknowledge that it is likely that tensions have always existed; either we abandon the idea of being one single Orthodox Church, or we comply with our ecclesiological principles which are the expressions of the catholicity of our faith.

Secondly, it must be understood that the future of ecumenism in the 21st century has to be plural and belongs to nobody but to the Lord. The continuation of the ecumenical organisations is vital and their experience is essential in witnessing the progress towards the unity of Christians. In parallel, an ecumenism of Church movements is also vital and should be encouraged, to open new ways towards unity. One important project probably the most important project today of this kind has been the initiative of many Church movements (more than 250 movements and communities) called Together for Europe, mainly initiated by the late Chiara Lubich. The reception by the people of God is very active when Church movements meet with each other; this is indeed the case in the Together for Europe meetings. The aim of these ecclesiological events is complementary to those of ecumenical organisations. It is right for you to do these, and not to let the others be undone (Matt 23, 23).

Bibliography

1. Sergius BULGAKOV, The Bride of the Lamb, Grand Rapids (Michigan), Eerdmans, 2002;2. Nicholas AFANASIEV, The Church of the Holy Spirit, Notre Dame (Indiana), University of Notre Dame Press,

2007;3. John ZIZIOULAS, Informal Groups in the Church: An Orthodox Viewpoint, in R. METZ and J. SCHLICK (eds.),

Informal Groups in the Church Papers of the Second Cerdic Colloquium Strasbourg May 13-15, 1971, The Pickwick Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1975, p. 275-298;

4. Alexander SCHMEMANN, Church, World, Mission Re ections on Orthodoxy In the West, Crestwood (New York), St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1979;

5. John MEYENDORFF, The vision of unity, Crestwood (New York), St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1987;6. (Paul ADELHEIM) , (Dogmatic teaching of the

Church, in the Canons and in the practice), Pskov, 2002;7. www.syndesmos.org (with a database of relevant texts from past activities).


(109) THE ECUMENICAL RELEVANCE OF ORTHODOX ICONOGRAPHY

Teva Regule

Orthodox Christian worship and life are marked by the use of icons. They ll public and private worship spaces and are symbols1 through which the faithful have an opportunity to encounter God and participate in Trinitarian life. The use of icons af rms the goodness of creation, the historicity and Truth of God becoming human in the Incarnation, and the ultimate consummation of all things in God. This paper will brie y introduce Orthodox iconography and highlight some of the ways that one can grow in relationship with God through the iconic en-counter. I will begin by presenting some of the theology of the icon from the received tradition of the Orthodox Church. I will then explore brie y the ways that an iconic theology can speak to the wider Christian realm of today. Lastly, I will outline some implications of the use of icons and the iconic encounter for ecumenical dia-logue, in particular by using icons to expand our understanding of Christian education, invite us to prayer with the living God, appreciate the beauty of creation, and draw us and all of creation into communion with the Trinity.

Theology of the Icon

Symbols have been a part of the Christian experience since the time of Jesus Christ. Early believers used the Fish ( , ichthus an acronym in Greek for Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior) to identify themselves as Christians and mark their gathering places, the Lamb to represent the sacri ce of Christ (e.g. Rev. 5.6), and the Good Shepherd to represent His care and guidance (e.g. Jn. 10.11, 14). Later, the Church adopted more elaborate renderings to illustrate the experience of the Christian life. For instance, in the baptistery of the house church at Dura Europos, the walls were covered with paintings of biblical themes. They told the story of the Christian experience from the Hebrew Scriptures to the Gospel accounts, including scenes of Adam and Eve, David and Goliath, the Healing of the Paralytic, and three women approaching an empty sarcophagus (most likely, the Myrrh-bearing women). It is likely that these stories helped to instruct the initiate and provided the background for the theological understanding of baptism as a new life in Christ.

In late antiquity, the Church struggled with the idea of actually depicting Christ, Himself, in visual form. Emperor Constantine V (741775) rejected images of Christ, claiming that the divine nature could not be depicted. He found icons to be idolatrous and posited that the only acceptable image of Christ was in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.2 Other theologians, most notably John of Damascus, argued for a visual representation of Christ. They reasoned that God used images to reveal Himself (e.g. the Burning Bush) and even made an image of Himself in His Son. Furthermore, the Incarnation transformed the Mosaic injunction found in the Decalogue. Although God the Father still could not be depicted in material form, the Son could be so rendered because of the Incarnation. In His Third Apology, John of Damascus explained the nature of the image. He says, An image is a likeness, or a model, or a gure of something, showing in itself what it depicts.3 Although distinction remains, for him, there was a close relationship between the image and its prototype in the icon. Icons of Christ af rm Christs humanity and show forth His divinity, the understanding of Christ as one person (hypostasis) with two natures as articulated by the Council of Chalcedon (451). According to John 1 I use the term symbol in its classic sensethat which participates in what it represents.2 Anton C. Vrame, The Educating Icon: Teaching Wisdom and Holiness in the Orthodox Way (Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1999), 24. Henceforth: Vrame, The Educating Icon.3 John of Damascus, Third Apology, 16 in On the Divine Images. Translated by David Anderson (Crestwood, New York, 1980), 73. Henceforth: On the Divine Images.



Teva Regule 713

of Damascus, Fleshly nature was not lost when it became part of the Godhead, but just as the Word made esh remained the Word, so also esh became the Word, yet remained esh, being united to the person of the Word.4 Icons of Christ can, therefore, be aids to worship as they lead the believer to the prototype of what is depicted. As Dr. Anthony Vrame, a Greek Orthodox educator, explains, The appropriate encounter with the icon, despite its powerful presence as a visual image, is an encounter that goes beyond the icon itself to the greater transcendent reality of God.5

God is both radically transcendent and yet, permeates everything by His divine energies. The Greek fathers distinguished between these energies and the essence of God. Although God in Gods essence is unknow-able, we are called to union with God through His energies.6 In the Greek patristic mind, there is no sharp line between the spiritual and the material. The icon is part of this continuum. According to Fr. John Chryssavgis, a Greek Orthodox theologian, The icon constitutes the epiphany of God in wood and the existence of the wood in the presence of God.7 Furthermore, it can help to bridge the distance between God and us. God invites us to engagement and participation in Him. Icons can provide a focal point for our response and the encounter with the Divine energies of God.

Artistically, icons provide this focal point through the use of inverse perspective. The focal point is not some distant point on the horizon, but lies within our immediate space, opening the horizon to us. It reverses the viewer-image relation. We are not just subjects and the image an object within our gaze. The image is both to be looked at and looks at us; we are put into relationship with each other. In our physical presence in front of an icon, we are both subjects and objects. According to Davor Dzalto, director of the Institute for the Study of Culture and Christianity (Belgrade), In other words, the icon appears as a window which enables communication; it becomes a way to enter a dialogue with a personal reality revealed in its gaze. Icons inspire activity and constant attention as they signify a personal presence of the portrayed person [or event].8

An emerging Christian Worldview

The 20th century was a time of great ecumenical convergence within Christianity.9 Many Western Christian theologians returned to the sources (resourcement), rediscovering the writings of the Early Church fathers, especially the Greek fathers. As a result, they grew in their appreciation of the early church and its expression within Eastern Christianity. In addition, as the wider literary, philosophical, and cultural milieu was moving from a modern world to what has been described as a post modern one, theologians began to mine the wider Christian tradition for categories and ways of articulating the Christian message within this new para-digm. There was less emphasis on de ned, declaratory Truth and more emphasis on the Mystery of God. In addition, there was an appreciation for both an apophatic dimension in knowing, as well as a relational way of understanding that included our experience. An iconic theology can speak to these aspects of post-modern thought particularly.

4 John of Damascus, First Apology, 4 as quoted in On the Divine Images.5 Vrame, The Educating Icon, 44.6 Gregory of Palamas articulated more fully the patristic understanding of the distinction between the energies and es-sence of God. Excerpts of his thought can be found in John Meyendorff, ed., Gregory Palamas: The Triads. (New York: Paulist Press, 1983).7 John Chryssavgis, The World of the Icon in Phronema, no. 7 (1992), 35. Henceforth: Chryssavgis, The World of the Icon.8 Davor Dzalto, How to be a Human Being in Red Egg Review. (Last accessed on 4/9/13). http://www.redeggreview.org/how-to-be-a-human-being. Henceforth: Dzalto, How to be a Human Being.9 For instance, the establishment of the World Council of Churches in 1948.



714 Chapter (109)

Implications of the Icon and Iconic Encounter

What can we learn from the early iconographic debates within the Church that can speak to our world today? What can we share from the understanding of icons in the received tradition with our brothers and sisters for whom the use of icons is either not a part of their tradition or a recent addition?

Expand our Understanding of Christian EducationIconic Catechesis

From the early church, we see that icons have been used to educate the faithful. John of Damascus says that they are books of the illiterate teaching without using words those who gaze upon them, and sanctifying the sense of sight10 Icons are images that proclaim the Gospel. However, for the Damascene, icons are not just tools for narration, but function to sanctify the vision of those who look upon them. They allow us to acquire a spiritual visionto see the world as God sees itin its eschatological fullness. We can see a scene from the past (or future) and yet can experience it in the present. It is not a static remembrance, but a living, active presence, one that we can encounter. For instance, the Trans guration icon is often rendered with Moses and Elijah, gures before the time of the historical Jesus yet present at the time and place of the event. They are part of the story. Their presence in the icon teaches us that for God, history is present, all are together in the same time and place. Time and space are sancti ed.11

To encounter an icon is to be taught by it through personal engagement. Knowledge of an event is contin-ually deepened by our participation in the event through the icon. Icons have the potential not only to inform, but form the believer. In the Trans guration icon, we are not just to learn about Jesus Christ and the saints, but are to strive to become like them, those imbued with God through the Holy Spirit. In fact, the process of Christian living is continually to be and become an icon of God (i.e. theosis). Vrame describes the process of learning through the use of icons as iconic catechesis. He emphasizes that as iconic catechesis becomes praxis, the act of education can become sacramental.12

Invite us to Prayer with the Living God

Although the icon can be pedagogical, the primary value of an icon is sacramental. It is not uncommon to see an Orthodox believer, talking to or praying with the referent in an icon, exercising the iconic catechesis men-tioned above. In doing so, they are communicating and growing in relationship with that referent. The more we open ourselves up to the other, even losing our individual self, the more we nd our true selves. It is the double movement of kenosis (self emptying) and ekstasis (standing outside oneself) of relational life, an icon of Trinitarian Life. In the words of Dzalto, They [icons] express the message that the only way that human beings can realize their true identity is through communication, interaction, and ultimately communion [with God].13 In our example of the Trans guration icon we get a glimpse of who we are called to be as icons of God. Praying with an icon invites us to move gradually from cognitive knowledge of God to knowledge of the heart from gathering information to formation and, ultimately, transformation.

Appreciate the Beauty of Creation

In the Orthodox world icons adorn the worship space. They invite us to appreciate the beauty of creation and of its creator. The language of iconography frequently uses proportion to give us a glimpse of Divine Mystery. Perhaps, the most intriguing ratio found within many icons is the Golden Mean or Golden Spiral.14 This 10 John of Damascus, Commentary on a sermon on the Forty Holy Martyrs of St. Basil in On Divine Images, 39.11 Western Christians are often familiar with a similar icon. The Christmas pageant is usually a contemporary demon-stration of the gospel accounts of the Nativity of Jesus Christ merging into one event.12 Vrame, The Educating Icon. 17.13 Dzalto, How to be a Human Being.14 The Golden Mean (phi) is 1.618 The fractional part of the ratio never ends and never repeats.



Teva Regule 715

is a ratio that is found throughout creation in the curve of a wave, our ear, a galaxy, etc. These proportions, found in nature and in art (in particular, iconography), point to a Truth that exists beyond our comprehension.

Like any painting, the aesthetic quality of the icon allows us to experience another dimension or plane of existence. In the Trans guration icon to which I have referred, we not only see the human gure of Jesus Christ, but a gure trans gured. We experience a glimpse of a world imbued with the energies of God. According to Chryssavgis, Gradually the experience of awe and wonder is replaced with the certainty of the knowledge and recognition of God in all things created.15 Iconography connects Beauty and Truth.

Draw Us and All of Creation into Communion with God

One of the main dogmatic disagreements between Christians is how we understand the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist. Many Roman Catholics, following Thomas Aquinas, attempt to explain the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ during the Mass in Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents, an explanation commonly known as transubstantiation. For Orthodox Christians, the nature of this transformation remains a mystery. For many Protestants, the bread and wine are simply mimetic devices, recalling the Last Supper.16 Perhaps, looking at the bread and wine through an iconic lens will help to open up our understanding of these elements and our relationship to them. Instead of simply thinking in categories of objective presence or non-presence, we can also understand the bread and wine as icons, viewing them through categories of encounter, journey, and ascent to God.

All of life is a gift from God and is destined to return to God. All of life is sacramental. Bread and wine are symbols of our life. We offer them to God and in return God gives us Life. In the received text of the Liturgy of Basil, after offering our gifts to God, we ask the Holy Spirit to come upon them and us

, , (kai anadeixai ton men arton touton auto to timion Swma tou Kiriou, kai Theou, kai Swtiros imwn Isou Chris-tou) and [show forth] this bread to be the precious Body of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.17 The Greek word, anadeixai (to declare or show forth) implies an encounter through the elements that are trans gured by the Holy Spirit. By the agency of the Holy Spirit, we, too, are changed. Just like the disci-ples at the Trans guration, we are able to encounter Jesus Christ is His glory, but now through the symbols of bread and wine. According to the Fr. Alexander Schmemann, one of the foremost liturgical theologians of the 20th century, Only in Christ and by His power can matter be liberated and become again the symbol of Gods glory and presence, the sacrament of His action and communion with man (sic) Christ came not to replace natural matter with some supernatural and sacred matter, but to restore it and to ful ll it as a means of communion with God.18 In the Eucharistic gift, the bread and wine become the Bread of Life (re: Jn. 6: 3258), a means of union with Christ into whom we are incorporated. Each time we receive it, we grow in relationship with Him and are further transformed. Schmemann emphasizes this ultimate goal of the Eucharist. In his words, the ful llment of the Eucharist is in the communion and transformation of man (sic) for which it is given [it is] a means to an end, which is mans (sic) dei cationknowledge of God and communion with God.19

Whether through the painted icon or through the icons of the bread and wine, we are drawn into relationship with the Trans gured One, in and through whom we participate in Trinitarian Life. 15 Chryssavgis, The World of the Icon,41.16 This is an overly broad generalization, but used for the purposes of illustration.17 This construction is also found in the Blessing of the Water in the Baptismal rite: But do You, O Master of All, [show forth] this water to be water of redemption, water of sancti cation, a cleansing of esh and spirit, a loosing of bonds, a forgiveness of sins, an illumination of soul, a laver of regeneration, a renewal of spirit, a gift of Son-ship, a garment of incorruption, a fountain of life. (Vaporis, Fr. N.M., ed., An Orthodox Prayer Book (Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press), 60.18 Alexander Schmemann, Of Water and the Spirit (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press), 49.19 Ibid., 50.



716 Chapter (109)

Bibliography

Chryssavgis, John, The World of the Icon Phronema, no. 7 (1992) 3543.Damascus, John Three Treatises on the Divine Images. Translated by Andrew Louth, (Crestwood, NY: St.

Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2003).Evdokimov, Michael, Light from the East: Icons in Liturgy and Prayer. Translated by Robert Smith (New

York: Paulist Press, 2004).Evdokimov, Paul. The Art of the Icon: A Theology of Beauty, (Redondo Beach: Oakwood Publications, 1990).Kalokyris Constantine D, The Essence of Orthodox Iconography Translated by Peter A. Chamberas. Brookline,

Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1971. (Chapters of the book found in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 12/2 (Winter 196667): 168204, 13/1 (Spring 1968): 65102, 14/1 (Spring 1969): 4264).

Lossky, Vladimir, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1998).

Mango, Cyril, The Art of the Byzantine Empire 3121453 (Medieval Academy of America, Toronto: University of

orthodox handbook on ecumenism - wcc version-finalconvert

Documents