|
|
Letter written to Syndesmos by Metropolitan Anthony and the Diocese on 28 June 1990
The Russian Orthodox Church
67 Ennismore Gardens
London SW7 1NH
Dear Members of Syndesmos,
This response to your Letter to the
Bishops of the Orthodox Church, is long overdue; the reason for the delay
lies in the fact that our Diocese wanted to study it carefully and involve in
the process both the Clergy and the Laity of Sourozh, that is, the members of
the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Great Britain and Ireland.
We are happy to see that young Orthodox of
all countries are taking the initiative and challenging the Hierarchy of our
Church on matters which transcend the concerns of any of the National Churches.
Our National Churches “at home” are not and cannot be sufficiently aware of the
multinational situation of Orthodoxy in the Diaspora; they need both the
testimony and the challenge which can be offered only from within the Orthodox
Dispersion. Thank you for taking a first step in this direction.
In the name of the Diocese of Sourozh, that
is, in the name of the Laity, the Presbytery and in my own name, I now offer
the following comments to your letter.
We all tend to think of resolving problems
in terms of organization; of establishing structures. This is a mistake. It is
life that can create forms; structures must express life and be supple enough
and fluid enough to vary according to local situations and real needs; even the
Canons of the Church are yardsticks and precedents to be learnt from, not
immutable rules intended to force life into obsolete patterns; they were
legitimate for situations which no longer exist but now need a new vision. This
is the way in which the Canons were gradually framed; some express the very
being of the Church, some were intended to meet concrete situations which no
longer exist. We must, all of us, look deeply into the concrete situation in
which we live and ask ourselves what is God’s will for us here and now, learn
to discern the promptings of the Spirit of God, and discern God’s activity in
our own time and place. Structures cannot create the visible unity of the
Orthodox Church any more than diplomatic agreements can bring together divided
Christians. One does not build unity, one grows into it, by adhering ever more
completely and perfectly to the Gospel and giving to things temporal, ethnic,
cultural, national, their legitimate, yet secondary place.
We must recognize the fact that the
Orthodox are divided on more than on level; to love one’s language, one’s
culture, one’s heritage is legitimate: to reject others who do not share it and
cling to their own treasures is not. The younger generation is in danger of
either clinging to the past of their families, or trying to create new ethnic
forms and so ceasing to be what their parents were, in order to become members
of the secular society in which they live. Creating new ethnicities in order to
break down barriers is no solution – this would add one more problem to those
that already exist.
Special consideration should be given to
the schisms which have their origin in the political upheavals of the last
century; the generations which is yours does not know from direct experience
how and why they occurred. It is easy to condemn those responsible for them and
their present heirs and followers, but think of the tragic destinies of the
generation of your own parents and grandparents and their contemporaries; think
of all they lost, of all they endured and then you may understand why they
seceded from their Mother Churches and formed temporary ecclesiastic
administrations (or jurisdictions) which have survived till now and have begun
to appear as obsolete to their members themselves. With a change of political
climate in Russia and other countries, and a greater openness and understanding
by all parties concerned (I am thinking of the Old Believers in Russia and
abroad, of the Old Calendarists in Greece and elsewhere, of the schism between
the Serbian Patriarchate and the Church in Macedonia and others) ways must be
found to recognize one another. An offer was made a few years ago by the
Patriarchate of Moscow to the Russian Church in Exile [i.e. ROCOR] to
re-establish communion in prayer and sacraments while retaining administrative
independence and without any change in political stance being expected. This
new openness is gradually bearing fruit.
You seem to dislike the term “Diaspora”; it
describes accurately state of affairs: Orthodox people of different
nationalities happen to live in all the countries of the world as a religious
minority, with a varying degree of scatteredness – in some places as
individuals, in others as small or relatively big parishes, too distant from
one another to maintain contact; in other places small or larger dioceses in
the midst of much more numerous non-Orthodox bodies, always too small and also
still too ethnic to be one of the denominations of the country where they live.
Yet there is another dimension to being a Diaspora, a positive one. The
dominant position of our Churches in the countries from which we come and their
close association with the State have accustomed us to think in terms totally
alien to early Christians in terms of what one often calls “the gathered
community”: yet the vocation of the Church is to bring the Gospel to all
creatures, to be like a handful of seed which the Master of the harvest
scatters far and wide, so that it brings fruit in all places where even one
seed falls. Berdiaeff wrote a very beautiful article on the subject in the
early years of our Russian exile – telling us that we were sent by God into the
whole world to bring Orthodoxy to those who had lost it and needed it; the
Apostles, twelve men, and the comparatively few disciples did not stay cooped
up together; they parted from one another to bring the Good News to those who
sat in darkness. Though distant from each other, they knew that they were one,
because they all were in Christ, and doing the work He had sent them to do.
This is a true meaning of “Diaspora”: to be a mission, a band of witnesses. To
do this we need hardly any structures – only a keen fellowship between us all
and a sincere, earnest dedication to the service of God. In this context
differences of language, of culture, of ethnicity, are no impediments; they
only enrich the message, make it more human, more accessible in its rich
variety to all those who receive it.
It is our clinging to structures that
divides us; the multiplicity of national jurisdictions would not separate us if
no jurisdiction claimed superiority over others, rights of power instead of the
privilege of serving more faithfully than others, if cooperation in all things
was the rule. We still need bishops and clergy who speak national languages to
serve those who have not yet acquired a common language with other Orthodox
living in the same territory; we must cherish our languages, as both prayers,
spiritual writings and theological statements often cannot be translated
adequately and need living interpreters. We must be deeply rooted in our
culture in order to appreciate, assess and share the culture of others.
However, we have no right to claim any superiority for our own heritage, but a
deep knowledge of it enables us to share its riches with all those who can be
enriched by it.
Structures are, of course, necessary to
keep together those who share the same heritage, to inspire them to act from
within a common and shared experience, for the life of the Sacraments, etc.,
but they are not an aim in themselves. And least of all should they be seen or
used as levers of power. There are a number of structures of oppression in our
Church; we forget too easily that the one who is highest is the servant of all,
not the overlord. Least of all should the Church fact the surrounding world
from a position of power, neither should the Church face it from one of
subservience. In all human relations the Church is to be the conscience of the
word, of every, of any society; speaking the truth in charity, but clearly,
without ambiguity, without calculation, daring to criticize or to approve of
things without regard to persons and without considering the danger it may
involve for herself. Together with all men we must cooperate in the building of
the city of man, but adding to the building a dimension which we alone can add
– a dimension of depth, of width, of holiness that would allow the only true
man – our Lord Jesus Christ, true man and true God – to be its First Citizen; a
city of man coextensive with the City God. Every Christian must make concrete
choices that may be at variance with those of others, yet all must aim at one
and the same thing – not at creating a liveable society, but a city so truly
human that it may become truly divine.
Building the City of God means giving
ourselves to God – discarding both our strength and our weakness and allowing
God’s grace to act freely in and through us; this is missionary work, but not proselytism.
Not an attempt at making others as we are, but sharing with them the
transfiguring joy of knowing God and or communing with Him, so that they may
become themselves, as unlike us as they are unique in the eyes of God. It is
not in uniformity that we can be one but in the oneness that is attainable only
through uniqueness, like musical notes capable of forming one perfect accord
because they are themselves, without confusion but also without competition.
I have mentioned the existence of structures
of oppression creating distinctions and establishing false hierarchies of
value. One is blatantly offensive and must be broken down: it is the position
of women in the Church. The Orthodox Church has made more than one unwarranted
statement on the subject but has not yet even begun to think about it; the
problem is considered as external to us, coming from those Churches that have
“lost their way”. This is untrue; it is at the heart of our Church’s life. It
must be thought out and seen with new eyes; to be referred to the tradition is
not enough, a tradition the meaning of which or whose origin cannot be traced
is no tradition, but traditionalism – a superstitious survival of prejudices
and misapprehensions. It is for your generation from within the Gospel and the
Faith given us by God in Christ to confront these evils.
Other problems are to be faced and
resolved: our relationship with the Oriental Orthodox Churches, with whom we
share the same faith while we express it in different ways – who will triumph?
Those who assess the spirit of these Churches or those who cling to the letter?
Other matters intrinsic to our Church must
be examined: whom must we admit to Baptism? To integration into the Orthodox
Church? Who should be allowed to be married in Church? How should we receive
converts? Are we prepared to live our faith or only to speak of it? This raises
all the problems of Christian ethics; one can be a heretic in action while
professing every iota of it in words if our life gives the lie to our proclamation.
Fasting and the ascetical life, the conditions and frequency of Communion; the
ways in which religious education must be rethought to cease to be information
and become setting on fire; and many local problems are and will be your
responsibility. According to the way you solve them Orthodoxy may become one of
the many irrelevant denominations or faiths of the world or its light and
inspiration.
It is for you to choose, and to act both
daringly and humbly.
May God’s blessing and power be in and with
out.
[Signed]
Metropolitan of Sourozh together with the Clergy and
Laity of the Diocese 28 June 1990
|
