ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE

Exarchate of Parishes of Russian
Tradition in Western Europe

A personal reflection on the Vicariate conference

by Barbara Bates

I’ve been asked to give some personal impressions of the conference. Others have transcribed the talks, so I will not go into great detail about that although I will pick out the parts that seemed important to me.

So - six months on from the cataclysm….what did I expect to find at our first conference, our first meeting in circumstances that were not fraught with anxiety, wondering who you could talk to, who was safe…whatever that means?

I was much intrigued by the title of the conference, ‘Finding our freedom in Christ’, as this is an idea that resonates strongly for me. I am not sure what hopes and expectations I came with, but certainly the hope of freedom was one of them – freedom in all its terror and glory. Freedom is a difficult thing; everyone says they want it, and it’s generally acknowledged to be a good thing, but the exercise of it is an awesome responsibility, ‘costing’, to use T S Eliot’s words, ‘not less than everything.’

For me the last six months have been a time of deep reflection and questioning, about what is important, what really matters, what it means to be an Orthodox Christian in our altered circumstances. Some of this has been really agonising, not just at the personal level where we must all confront or deny our own truth, but also in relationships between people, and in the loss of some. This loss may be balanced by the discovery and deepening of other relationships, but cannot be cancelled out thereby.

We began at 1030 on Saturday morning in this rather beautiful Guild church in Holborn. Irina Kirillova chaired the meeting in her usual firm and clear way, introducing the day as a special day for us all, being the first meeting of us all as a ‘consciously united family’. Bishop Basil was to speak on the historical context of recent events; Archbishop Gabriel was to speak of our future as the local church. Throughout both talks there would be opportunity for discussion and question.

In Bishop Basil’s talk I was reminded again of our historical links with the Exarchate. It was significant for me to hear that we could well have been in the Exarchate before, and it’s not so huge a move as might at first appear. Our archdiocese goes right back to 1931, when Metropolitan Evlogy sought the protection of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. From 1931 to 1946 the parish was under his authority.

Bishop Basil gave a resumé of the social, political and economic changes in the middle of the twentieth century and how they affected both the Moscow Patriarchate and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. He pointed out that there are now two contrasting ecclesiologies and that this has a bearing on our recent crisis. The Moscow Patriarchate defends what could be described as a ‘radical autocephaly’, where each Church is independent and there is no ‘real structural hierarchy between them’. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, on the other hand, supports an ecclesiology which is summed up in the 34th Apostolic Canon, which speaks of the relationship of bishops in any given area. Where there is more than one diocese within an area, the bishops must recognise one among them as first, as their ‘Metropolitan’, and do nothing outside their own territory without his approval. In turn the Metropolitan will do nothing that affects the others without their approval. This implies equality, but also unity. The  Metropolitan is the focus of that unity. He is not ‘up above’, at a higher, superior ‘level’ but in the centre. This is a ‘flat’, rather than a vertical ecclesiology. As Archbishop Gabriel later put it, we need a ‘first’ but not a ‘chief’.

Because of these differing ecclesiologies, Bishop Basil noted that we now find ourselves in the middle of a problem that affects world Orthodoxy, not just our part of it.

The second part of Bishop Basil’s paper was about where we are now. He noted that it is almost a historical accident that we weren’t part of the Archdiocese all along – in 1946 it could have gone either way. He explained the perhaps unfamiliar term ‘Vicariate’ which is to do with fitting into the pre-existing structures of the archdiocese. To incorporate us as another diocese would have necessitated changes in the statutes, whereas a Vicariate was easily formed on the basis of the Moscow Council of 1917-18..

In the Vicariate it has been agreed that the basic structures of Sourozh will be preserved; we will have our own financial system (a Vicariate account is being opened now), and we will keep existing relationships and responsibilities with government such as child protection, charity commission, CRB clearances etc. As in the past there was a diocesan contribution, so now parishes will need to make a similar contribution for the Vicariate. A formula for this is being worked out.

But this is, as Bishop Basil said, mere administration. What we need is, to quote C S Lewis,  ‘mere Christianity’.  We need to develop a sense of belonging to the larger body in which we are now placed. Our primary purpose is simply to be the Church, for everybody, finding our freedom in Christ, living fully where we are.

Several questions followed, in which varied concerns were raised. Some, it seems, have  tried to make a virtue of necessity, and say that we now have an opportunity for ‘something new’. Others felt it was inappropriate and perhaps even naïve to take this view.

Others asked Archbishop Gabriel to comment on the sense of homelessness experienced by the Cathedral parish, calling for action and resolution. He described the similar situations in Biarritz and Nice. Bishop Basil went on to explain that the cathedral and some clergy houses were held by the charitable trust, and it is a matter for British law to establish to whom they belong.This is unfortunately a slow and involved process.

We broke for lunch at this point, and I for one engaged in many happy conversations, with people whom I had had no opportunity to meet for a long time, certainly not in such easy circumstances, as the last Sourozh conference had been very tense and difficult.

In the afternoon Archbishop Gabriel gave a talk entitled ‘Our Future; The Local Church’. He stressed that in Christ we are not defined by our various nationalities, and quoted Metropolitan Anthony as saying that we will be like the Early Church, where people had ’nothing in common but Christ’, Who is the true and ultimate focus of our unity. Differences in language must not hinder our spiritual unity.  He said that being in the Ecumenical Patriarchate guarantees us communion with the whole Orthodox Church., and that there is freedom in pastoral work and in the administration of the archdiocese.

Archbishop Gabriel then came closer to the centre of things, quoting St Paul, ‘...though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal…’ (1 Cor.13, 1) and thanked us for the love and support we have shown to Bishop Basil. He responded to the anxiety felt by many about the cathedral by urging us to accept that our bishops are acting for the best. He reminded us that the role of a bishop can be described as Pontifex, maker of bridges.

There were several comments and questions following his talk. One said that even in this difficult struggle God is still with us and we must have faith that good will come out of this. Another said it was important to recall our continuity with the work of Metropolitan Anthony, sharing the treasures of Orthodoxy with those to whom they are unknown. Another agreed but felt that we have to recognise we are wounded and bruised and healing is required. Some people felt in the dark, powerless, not knowing what’s going on. Bishop Basil said that it was not only our current circumstances that produce woundedness – to be human is in itself to be wounded, and as it is difficult to follow all the complexities of legal process, we must concentrate on the creation of a worshipping community – this sense of community is paramount.

Another person felt it was important to develop workable structures in this incipient community, to work out what needs doing and appoint people to do them. Bishop Basil pointed out that structures are in place. There is a continuing Council and Assembly, and elections will be held once the constitution for the Vicariate has been adopted.

There were several comments on the importance of effective communication. People said that only a few seem to know what is going on. I was surprised. I naively thought everyone in London knew everyone else. Several suggestions were made, such as providing lists of people who could provide overnight accommodation in each parish, and encouraging visits between parishes. Another suggestion was to arrange ‘twinning’ of parishes, to foster links.

There was a general sense that we need to move on from lamentations about the past, and to engage with our current reality.. Another speaker stressed the importance of our ‘mission for Christ’, which he felt was independent of any particular building. Others disagreed, saying it is not an indication of shallowness to mourn the loss of the cathedral, for a community needs a home.

Another said we should not think it was only the London parish that had suffered – others had too. I was glad this was said, as I am from Nottingham and can certainly vouch for the truth of this comment. Although we have had a very painful, even agonising, time, I have increasing hope that we can find a way for all who have contributed to the foundation and development of our beautiful building to continue to worship in it. It’s a hard thing for Christians to go to law; rather, we should ‘…agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him….’(Matt. 5, 25.) .

There was a call for the annual conference to continue, if we can find a suitable venue that can take about 150 people next May Bank Holiday. Any suggestions for this should be directed to Kelsey Cheshire.

Archbishop Gregorios was with us in the afternoon and added some encouraging words – all Christian churches have problems, but in this time before the Nativity, we must focus on what this means, on what Incarnation means for us all.

In summing up my impressions, I want to concentrate on the heart of things. We have been wounded and hurt in the process of achieving this Freedom in Christ. We are not broken, but fragile….fragile as the surgeon’s glove, which must, as we must, be pliant to the will of its creator. So each person must do all they can, in their own centre and prayerfulness, to live the Gospel in their own sphere of influence – blooming ‘where they are planted’.

I also feel strongly the importance of not demonising ‘the other side’. In Christ there are no others. We have to accept what has happened, perhaps understanding parts of it in the light of ‘stages of grief’. I personally have only just emerged from denial. Now we have to ‘work the problem’ – how can divided communities get on with sacramental life and demonstration of the Gospel? In this we must no longer bewail our circumstances, or relate tales any more of who said what and how dreadful it was - we must take individual responsibility for the quality of our parish life, as and where it is now, ‘hic et nunc’, using the talents and gifts we have been given. This responsibility is the other side of the freedom that we say we desire, and it includes responsibility for each other, particularly for our clergy, whom we must not drain, but uphold.

I cannot end with anything more apposite than the words of St Paul, to which our Archbishop referred earlier,

‘..though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.’