The Reunion of Christendom
IL—The Orthodox Point of View
[The Archbishop Clermanos of Thyateira, who contributes the following article, is well known as a distinguished ecclesiastic of the Orthodox Church resident in this country, and deeply interested in Christian Reunion.]
THE Orthodox Church has, from the beginning, de- clared its participation in the various movements which aim at the rapprochement, co-operation, and reunion of the Churches, and which are a special characteristic of the post-War period. The writer had the privilege, as representative of the Oecumenical Patriarchate, of taking part in all the preliminary work from the year 1920, and in the Conferences which met at Stockholm in 1925 and Lausanne in 1927, and still continues to work with the Continuation Committees of both Conferences. It may, therefore, be of interest if he expounds, in these columns, the views on rapproche- ment and reunion of the Churches which the Orthodox Church holds and which its representatives expressed at those two Conferences.
But, first of all, a distinction must be made between the two movements. The Stockholm movement, by transferring to an international sphere that which the so-called " Copec " aims at in a purely British sphere, seeks to endue the whole ethical and social structure of humanity with the principles of Christianity. For it holds that it is only by the prevalence of these principles that humanity can rid itself of the ills which beset it, and that those problems particularly, which have arisen since the War, can meet with a solution. The Lausanne movement derived its motive from this, that great harm is done to the missionary work of the Church by reason of the division of, and antagonism between the Christian Churches whose concern it is to bring the peoples of the world to Christ. Realizing, on the' other hand, the great increase of strength which would came to Christianity in its labours for the regeneration and salvation of the world, if it could appear as one united body, the Lausanne movement aimed at reuniting the Churches in faith and order. Even before the War, of course, we find the origins of these two inovenients, both as regards the co=operation of looal Churches on more general questions of Christianity and as regards attempts at reunion of divided Churches. But it is primarily a manifestation of the spirit of rapprochement between the nations (as developed after the Great War) that these movements of the Churches have a wider scope to-day, and, under the designation of " Universal," or " World Conferences," seek, if possible, to embrace all the Churches of Christ.
For the first of these movements the Orthodox had prepared themselves with an EncyClical to all the Churches of Christ, which the Oecumenical Patriarchate issued in January, 1920, and in which it invited the Churches to collaborate in an attempt to ward off the ills which, more especially after the War, beset the world, and to achieve, more surely, those aims which inspire the Churches on earth. While not overlooking, or mini- mizing the dogmatic differences which separate the various Churches, the Orthodox Church does not regard them as an insurmountable obstacle to co-operation of the Churches ; on the contrary, it regards such co- operation as a vital preliminary to the removal of theSe dogmatic differences and to reunion in 'faith. In place of the method of discussion—not always friendlyas a means to the achievement of reunion in faith, the Orthodox Church proposed reunion in love, prayer and co-operation, and, through' these, ultimately reunion in faith. What is presupposed by such co-operation ? These are the principal lines of Orthcidox thought.' The various Churches of Chrilt must apply the canon which is followed in the development of true internationalism: In the same- way that, if we start from a healthy nationalism -we are bound to arrive at a healthy inter- nationalism, which shall include in its thought and activity all nations as members of one and the same humanity, the Churches must have a like purpose in view. It is essential that the members of the different Churches should revive and intensify in their hearts the idea that, beyond the narrow meaning of the Church, as embracing the members of one local communion, there exists a wider unity of the Church. In this unity, in which are included all who admit as the basis of their faith the Revelation of God in Christ; and proclaim Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord, the participants should not regard one another as strangers, still less as enemieS, but as " fellow-heirs and of the same body and partakers of His promise in Christ by the Gospel " (Ephesians 8, 6). • The idea of such a unity must be cultivated and developed to such a degree that each Chureh, as it forms with its own members a united body, may atthe same time consider itself a member of a wider body, as in the wonderful words of St. Paul (1 Corinthians, 12, 12.): This consciousness of unity will contribute to the elim- ination of the existing differences between the Churches, to the development of concern for the' existence and welfare of other Churches, and to the promotion of the common interests Of the whole-Christian body. According to the Orthodox view, deVotiOn to one's own' Church is no barrier to co-operation, on an ethical and social basis, with the other Churches ; rather it involves the duty of so co-operating: The problems which have arisen since the War cannot be regarded- as tho-problems of one local Church ; they concern the whole Christian world, and their solution can only come by co-operation of all the Churches. At a time when the enemies of Christianity are moving heaven and earth in their endeavours to undermine the forces of Christianity, the Churches would be committing the greatest betrayal if they did not lend each other help in warding off the imminent dangers, and so allowing the principles of Christianity to prevail in the world.
We come now to the second of these movements. In spite of • their earnest desires to see the realization of Reunion, the Orthodox cannot blind 'themselves to the difficulties in ttie way of this realization. These diffi- culties are both external and internal. Divided from one another over a long period of time, the Churches have _come to a point where they know little of each other, not so much in matters of teaching, as in the matters of their internal life and of the spirit informing each of them. With this ignorance prejudice is bound up, which has made it almost impossible to arrive at an unbiassed historical inquiry into the reasons which have brought it about that one and the same Church appears under differing external forms. But apart from this external estrangement, it is incontrovertible that an internal estrangement has also grown up. It is the divergent conception of the truths of Christianity, i.e., the dogmatic differences which divide the Churches from one another. All who followed the labours of the Lausanne Conference at once discerned two currents of ideas, prevalent, not only in the public discussions, but also in the various Committees where the exposition of views was clearer and:more intelligible. I may call these currents of -ideaS the "catholicizing " and the protestant." The one claims that it clings to the original, traditional conception of Christianity, as incarn- ated in the ancient Church and expressed in the. various forms of its-religious life,' its teaching, its government, its worship. The other maintains- that - the ancient Church distorted the spirit of original Christianity and fell into n Pharisaical formality introducing , much of the mechanical, even a magical conception of the Grace that is given through the mysteries. The external estrangement may be removed. Rapprochement and contact between the representatives of the ChurcheS in Conference, impartial examination and appreciation of the essential life of the other Churches, and the study by theologians of the common dogmatic terms which the various Churches make use of, even in a differing sense, are measures which have been recognized as contributing to rapprochement, and have already been applied by the Continuation Committee of the Lausanne Conference.
But how will the two currents of ideas be united into one common current ? At Lausanne the Orthodox rejected the possibility of Reunion by compromise, in so far as matters of faith are concerned. They did this because they duly appreciated the dangers inherent in a purely mechanical reunion of that kind, dangers of irremediable strifes and divisions in the future. But by their declaration:they did not remove all hope of the reunion of the Churches in faith and order. They dispelled the possibility of immediate reunion and showed that Reunion of the . Churches in Faith and Order will be the outcome of a long and arduous evolution: For this reason, it is first of all necessary that ChurcheS' which have originally had the same, dogmatic prineiples, and have since been divided for reasons rather of au " external " nature, should lead the way in reunion' with one another. In this way, in place of the numerous Churches which to-day participate in Reunion discussions, there will remain only those Churches which are divided from one another on dogmatic principles. The recent instances of reunions achieved in various parts of Christen- dom bear witness that this need has at last been realized.
Secondly, it is essential that the co-operation of the Churches in the field of social and ethical problems should continue uninterruptedly, since this co-operation is the , -finest preliminary measure for rapprochement' and reunion.
Finally, the most important point of all. Since the • reunion of the Churches is to the glory of God and the realization of His will concerning the world and mankind, , this achievement will, be impossible without His help. • Therefore, all true followers of Christ should in their prayers invoke the help of God in this work of Reunion..
[We have already published in this series an introductory article by the Rev. A. S. Duncan-Jones, and " The Anglican Position," by the Bishop of Middleton. Next week we shall publish " Reunion and the South Indian Scheme," by Dr. Scott Lidgett.—ED. SPECTATOR.]
Previous page
