The year 2016 was marked in the life of the Orthodox Church by an unprecedented surge of anti-ecumenical sentiments. First of all, they were connected with the publication of the draft document "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world", which was supposed to be considered at the Pan-Orthodox Council. 1 The anti-ecumenism protests had a significant impact on the decision of the four autocephalous churches not to participate in the council, as a result of which the Council of Crete (June 2016) lost its pan-Orthodox status. In Russia, anti-ecumenical criticism was also linked to the meeting between Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia and Pope Francis in Havana on February 12, 2016.

The surge of anti-ecumenism in the Orthodox community prompts us to revisit the current state of the ecumenical movement. At the request of the editorial board of our magazine, three ecumenical figures belonging to different faiths answer Andrey Shishkov's questions:

Heikki Huttunen - Archpriest, cleric of the Finnish Orthodox Church (Patriarchate of Constantinople), Secretary General of the Conference of European Churches.

Dagmar Heller is a pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany, Executive Secretary of the Commission of the World Council of Churches "Faith and Church Organization", Professor at the Ecumenical Institute in Bosse (Geneva).

Johannes Oeldemann-Director of the Ecumenical Research Institute. Johann Adam Mehler in Paderborn (Germany), consultant to the German Catholic Bishops ' Conference and member of its delegation to the theological dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church.

1. See the issue of our magazine with the main topic " Pan-Orthodox Council: preparation, agenda, context "(No. 1 (34), 2016).

page 301
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-7203-2017-35-1-301-312

Christian Ecumenism Today: Crisis or Transformation?

Ecumenical leaders of different Christian churches - Orthodox archpriest Heikki Huttunen, Lutheran pastor Dagmar Heller and Catholic theologian Johannes Oeldemann - answer questions of the editorial office about the current state of ecumenism. In particular, under discussion are the following topics: a crisis of the Ecumenical movement, change of its aims and basic positions over the past century; reaction of ecumenism to anti-ecumenical criticism and possibility of dialogue between ecumenists and anti-ecumenists; conservative Christian alliances as a form of ecumenical cooperation.

Keywords: antiecumenism, conservative Christian alliances, Ecumenical movement, ecumenism, inter-confessional cooperation, Pan-Orthodox Council, traditional values, World Council of Churches.

The main goal of the ecumenical movement from the very beginning was to unite the churches. This goal is declared by the participants of the ecumenical movement even today. At the same time, the main ecumenical activity gradually shifted to the area of inter-confessional interaction on various issues without being tied to the achievement of the main goal. It seems that Christian reunification is now relegated to an uncertain future (for example, in the WCC document " The Church: Toward

Christian Ecumenism Today: Crisis or Transformation? Conversation with ecumenists of different confessions / / State, religion, Church in Russia and abroad. 2017. N 1. pp. 301-312.

"Christian Ecumenism Today: Crisis or Transformation? Discussion with Ecumenical Leaders of Different Christian Churches" (2017), Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 35(1): 301-312.

page 302
a Common Vision" unity as communion (koinonia) is described in eschatological terms, that is, it is taken out of the limits of human history). Does this mean that the main goal of ecumenism-the unification of churches - is no longer relevant, and it has been replaced by a more pragmatic idea of ecumenism as inter-confessional interaction without unification? If so, is this not evidence of a crisis in the ecumenical movement?

HEIKKI HUTTUNEN: Thank you for the opportunity to answer some interesting questions. I am not sure that 2016 was marked by an "unprecedented surge of anti-ecumenical sentiment". I think these moods gradually manifested themselves over time. Even if the preparations for the Holy and Great Council have generated negative reviews, they have also inspired constructive and useful critical discussion on the topics prepared for the Council, including ecumenical relations. In fact, I think the word "unprecedented "could be used to refer to this positive discussion, because I find it clearer and more open than similar discussions in the past, while" anti-ecumenical " reactions were nothing new. We should not underestimate the importance of the Council's discussion of ecumenical relations and the decision to adopt the document "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian World". This means that ecumenical relations and the pursuit of Christian unity are now an officially sanctioned part of the mission of the Orthodox Church, and not just additional academic, spiritual, or ecclesiastical-political activities carried out by individual local churches, hierarchs, communities, or theological schools. I am convinced that the decision of the four churches to refrain from participating in the Holy and Great Council was influenced by other important factors, not just the discussion of ecumenical relations. Their absence from the Council is a sad fact, but, in my opinion, it did not change the pan - Orthodox status of the Council.

To answer the first question, I would like to point out that if you turn to the history of the modern ecumenical movement,

page 303
you will find that witness and service in the world of the Life and Work movement have always co-existed with the doctrinal work of the Faith and Church Organization movement. The ecumenical vision implies that both theological dialogue and common witness and service, as well as common prayer, contribute to common obedience to the gospel and to the words of our Lord's prayer " that they may all be one "[Jn 17: 21]. This balance has never been self-evident, and I think that the fact that the ecumenical movement is always going through one crisis or another indicates the dynamism of the situation. It is true that over the past two decades we have witnessed ecumenical instability, even some frustration with progress or lack thereof in the doctrinal dialogue. Some Christians (Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox) believe that working towards common social and practical goals is enough to move towards Christian unity. Some Orthodox Christians openly say that they are ready to receive "fraternal help" from other churches, although they are not interested in theological or spiritual exchanges with them. Others believe that we should focus our efforts primarily on doctrinal dialogue and forget about shared witness and service. In my opinion, this situation shows that the ecumenical movement has become "hostage to its own success": the theological dialogue has led to a significant understanding that is broader and deeper than we can express in doctrinal or canonical terms. There is an air of expectation in ecumenical theology. I am convinced that when it pleases God, he will send us a new generation of creative theologians to meet this challenge.

DAGMAR HELLER: To answer this question, preliminary explanations are needed. You use the term "association". The term was rarely used in the ecumenical movement. Of course, it is present in some documents of the early XX century, but, for example, the World Council of Churches in its Constitution speaks of "unity" as its goal.

It is clear that in this context "unification" is a problematic term, since unification is only possible if we are talking about two churches (or other institutions) that previously formed one whole (as in the case of the two German states united in 1990). But when we are talking about different churches, we are talking about different churches.-

page 304
kwah, the situation is more complicated. For example, to talk about the unification of Lutherans and Orthodox Christians is meaningless, because they have never formed one whole. Lutherans descended from the Roman Catholic Church, which at that time was already separated from the Orthodox Church. So I understand the current situation as follows. There are many different churches that are separated. Some of them don't even recognize others as churches. But all of them are based on the Bible and Jesus Christ. This raises the question: how can they be united?

Given the above, this is how I would answer your question.

The goal of the ecumenical movement was originally "unity" based on the will of Jesus, which he expressed in his last prayer: "I pray not only for them, but also for those who believe in me according to their word, that they may all be one; just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, so that the world may believe that you have sent Me" (Jn 17: 20-21). At the same time, it was already evident at the first ecumenical conferences that the participants in the movement had different understandings of this unity. As can be clearly seen in the discussions held during the Second World Conference of the Faith and Church Organization movement (Edinburgh, 1927), some churches understood unity as "common action" (working together on practical issues), others as "intercommunion" (the common Eucharist as an expression of unity while maintaining autonomy churches as organizations), and still others expected unity as the achievement of an" organic union " (a single organization).

In other words, the churches within the ecumenical movement sought to follow the will of God and "be one", but at the same time they understood differently what this unity should be. Therefore, of course, one of the main tasks of the ecumenical movement is to find out together what kind of unity we are striving for.

This goal of the ecumenical movement remains relevant to this day. And it is even more relevant today than it was a hundred years ago, when the ecumenical movement was just emerging. When we look at the challenges of the modern world - for example, the growing secularism, the fact that we live in more pluralistic societies, and so on - we understand that it is necessary for Christians to have a unanimous voice in proclaiming the gospel to the world.

page 305
However, this is a much more difficult task than the pioneers of the ecumenical movement thought. This movement has achieved considerable success in its history. For example, Anglicans and Protestants in Europe and North America proclaimed the restoration of communion (Porvoo Agreement and other agreements in the United States and Canada). The same thing happened in Europe with the Lutheran and Reformed churches, which have been separated since the Reformation: today they are united in the Communion of Protestant Churches in Europe, their pastors are mutually recognized, and the faithful can receive communion in all the member churches of the Communion. Much progress has also been made in relations between Lutherans and Catholics, especially since 1999, when the Joint Declaration on Justification was signed. The general ceremony held last year in Lund with the participation of the President of the Lutheran World Federation and Pope Francis is a very encouraging symbolic event.

Some talk about the crisis of the ecumenical movement, but it depends on their view and expectations. Being realistic, we cannot expect that Christians who have been divided for more than a thousand years will be able to achieve unity in a hundred years. In addition, the perception of the current situation as a crisis is linked to the understanding that ecumenical efforts are much more difficult and complex than is usually thought. And this "crisis" only helps us to be more realistic.

I know that from the Orthodox point of view, the ecumenical movement is perceived as being in crisis due to the fact that in recent years the differences between Orthodox and Protestants have grown, especially in connection with new issues that have arisen in the modern world. This is a new challenge for the ecumenical movement, and one of the main problems is that Protestants and Orthodox Christians understand the modern world differently and respond to new challenges. But I see no other way than to continue the dialogue on these issues, otherwise we will not be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ, whose call to love (even love for enemies) we are called to carry to the world.

We need to find ways to be united despite our differences.

JOHANNES ELDEMANN: I do not share the opinion that the main goal of the ecumenical movement has ceased to be relevant for the po-

page 306
bulletin of ecumenical dialogues. This may be partly true for the World Council of Churches and multi-stakeholder dialogues. Nevertheless, most bilateral dialogues still intend to make a significant contribution to the restoration of church unity. As far as the goal of the ecumenical movement is concerned, I prefer to talk about the restoration of communion rather than the "reunification" of churches or "uniting churches", as this may give rise to the false impression that today's desire for unity is still similar to what was called "uniatism"in the past. The Catholic Church has abandoned this model based on an exclusivist ecclesiology-an understanding of the Church that today, by the way, is held by Orthodox fundamentalists (most of them do not know that they are copying what they are opposing). The main problem of the ecumenical movement today is the lack of a common understanding of the main goal. Most church leaders and theologians agree that it should be some form of" unity in diversity, " but they disagree on what is essential to unity and what are the limits of acceptable diversity.

Many people today are talking about a" conservative turn " on a global scale. Conservative Christian alliances and initiatives united around the protection of "traditional values" are becoming increasingly important (for example, the World Congress of Families, the pro-life Movement, the Manhattan Declaration of 2009). Can we say that conservative Christian alliances represent a different type of ecumenical interaction? Does the emergence of such a conservative ecumenism mean that classical ecumenism has ceased to be comprehensive and inclusive?

HEIKKI HUTTUNEN: Sometimes it seems that international "ecumenism" is dominated by so-called liberal values. But this is not entirely true. In reality, international ecumenical platforms - such as the Conference of European Churches-present a wide range of different views on many issues.

page 307
questions, such as ambiguous ethical interpretations of the Christian faith. We need a more open and trusting dialogue on these topics. We need to be strengthened in the understanding that, although we may come to different pastoral conclusions on certain issues according to the cultural and social context in which we live, we all strive to follow the same Lord. It is really interesting to note that there is something like "conservative ecumenism". When I read some of the texts of Orthodox "anti-ecumenists", I am struck by how much their theology and arguments are similar to those put forward by Protestant"anti-ecumenists"! It would be interesting if someone could analyze these influences and their background.

DAGMAR HELLER: For me, ecumenism includes all participants who strive for the unity that God expects from Christians. In this sense, there is only one ecumenical movement. From the very beginning, there were different opinions and different voices within this movement. Since 1974, when the so - called Lausanne movement led by Billy Graham failed to adopt the WCC's policies, we have seen two types of ecumenism-the more progressive and the more conservative. However, in recent years, the two streams have become closer again, and now (since 2013) there is a formal interaction between the Evangelical Alliance and the World Council of Churches.

JOHANNES ELDEMANN: Indeed, in the last decade, conservative groups from different faiths (Catholics, Evangelicals, and also partly Orthodox) have sought to cooperate in the defense of"traditional values". Such cooperation is useful for the joint witness of the churches in our societies, but it cannot replace "classical ecumenism". Also, keep in mind that conservative groups do not represent the entire church. In the Orthodox world today, they may be in the majority, but in a large part of the churches of the Western Hemisphere, they remain a minority. Thus, there is a certain danger that "conservative alliances" will not promote Christian unity, but will create new divisions - now no longer along confessional borders, but between those who call themselves "true" Christians and those who believe that through representation, they will be able to create new divisions.

page 308
about" traditional values " it is impossible to express the fullness of the Christian faith. The emergence of a certain form of conservative ecumenism indicates the need to reflect on the significance of the "modern" (and even "post-modern") world for the witness of the church: is it possible to convince people of the truth of the revelation of Christ by condemning the "sinful" world? Would it not be more convincing to proclaim the Gospel in a language that people can understand and in accordance with the philosophical context of today's world? I think most church fathers would prefer the second approach.

The ecumenical movement, at least since the 1960s, has maintained an attitude of inclusivity, which implies openness to and dialogue between a wide variety of theological positions. Can this attitude be applied to anti-ecumenism? Are there any possible efforts on the part of ecumenical organizations to change the point of view of anti-ecumenists? What arguments can be made in favor of ecumenism in this case?

HEIKKI HUTTUNEN: I think the terms " ecumenist "and" anti-ecumenist " are misleading. We don't need any other "isms" than faithfulness to the Gospel and the Orthodox faith. When we discover differences of opinion, we need patience and love to hear each other, and a loving will to understand each other. In this way, we will find a way forward.

DAGMAR HELLER: I don't quite understand what you're talking about when you talk about the "ecumenical movement". The term "ecumenical" is by definition inclusive. It comes from the Greek word ecumene, which the ancient Greeks used to mean "all the inhabited earth" (at that time it was the Roman Empire). In this sense, the "ecumenical movement" is inclusive, as it seeks to embrace the whole world. There are two aspects here. The Ecumenical Movement (1) calls on all Christians to work together to fulfill the mission that they are called upon to fulfill.-

page 309
2) to preach the gospel together to the whole world. Anti-ecumenists are, by definition, people who oppose such inclusivity, and therefore it is difficult to have a dialogue with them: they just do not want to talk to representatives of the ecumenical movement. This creates difficulties for ecumenists. Dialogue always implies a willingness on both sides to talk. If one of the parties does not want to talk, then there can be no dialogue.

Anti-ecumenism relies on ignorance and possibly misunderstanding. To many people, ecumenism seems too political. But I think that being a Christian in many ways means actively participating in the life of society. For some, ecumenism is a compromise on matters of faith. But I think that faith should be distinguished from knowledge and ideology. Faith is always a mystery, faith presupposes doubt, and therefore faith is connected with the search, with staying on the road. This means that faith involves dialogue, searching together with others.

There are also those who fear that ecumenism leads to syncretism. However, Christianity from the very beginning of its history encountered other cultures and incorporated elements of these cultures, for example, the thought of the Hellenistic era. Of course, ecumenists should be careful and always make clear distinctions, but if we have faith, we should not be afraid. As I said, dialogue with anti-ecumenists is difficult. But first of all, we need to give correct information about ecumenism and its importance for the survival of Christianity in school, during catechesis, and in various forms of religious education. Theologically speaking, ecumenism is based on the catholicity of the Church, which we all profess in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. A church that rejects ecumenical dialogue risks becoming a sect.

I can understand many of the fears of anti-ecumenists, but I know I can't change their point of view. I can only tell them that fear is a very bad adviser. Jesus always said to his disciples, " Don't be afraid!". Faith in God is faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. So I think that if we believe in the Holy Spirit, we should leave it to him to judge who is right and who is wrong, who is saved and who is not. God expects us to love each other - even our enemies. At the heart of ecumenism is love, because it is love that encourages us to take an interest in the life of others in the faith, and love engenders in us respect for those who have lived in the faith.-

page 310
love encourages us to work together and engage in dialogue with others.

So I don't think that anti-ecumenists can be persuaded by arguments. We need a lot of patience, love and respect in dealing with them, but we also need clear answers and statements that show that there is nothing wrong with Ecumenism.

JOHANNES ELDEMANN: The term "inclusivity" is used to describe a fundamental change in most Christian churches that involves a shift from an exclusivist self-understanding to a position that allows for the possibility of different paths to salvation. In the Catholic Church, this position was officially adopted by the decrees of the Second Vatican Council. However, it is misleading to think of inclusivity as a form of" relativism, " as most anti-ecumenists do. This difference should be emphasized in discussions with anti-ecumenical groups within our churches. An inclusive attitude does not mean giving up the belief that our church is the true Church; it means that the boundaries of the Church (as the body of Christ) can be wider than the boundaries of our church. Of course, ecumenical organizations, as well as individual churches, should try to engage in dialogue with anti-ecumenical groups. But since the latter are generally unwilling to engage in a dialogue to discuss the validity of both sides ' arguments, I am skeptical that they can be "included" in an open discussion about a common understanding of the Church and its unity.

Are there any anti-ecumenists in your church? Do supporters of the ecumenical movement engage in a dialogue with them?

HEIKKI HUTTUNEN: In response to the previous question, I have already mentioned this. I can add that everyone in the Finnish Orthodox Church is "ecumenist", because we live as a recognized minority among Lutherans, secular people and believers of other churches and religions. Almost every Orthodox Christian in Finland shares their family life, work, studies, friendships, etc. with their non-Orthodox spouse, friends, and neighbors. This requires us to feed our du-

page 311
They lived a peaceful life by praying and staying in the Orthodox church community, and thus strengthening themselves, they openly went out to meet other people who are also children of God.

DAGMAR HELLER: Yes, there are anti-ecumenists in my church, but there is no dialogue with them, because, as I have already explained, it is the anti-ecumenists who refuse to have a dialogue.

JOHANNES ELDEMANN: There are certain groups in the Catholic Church that refrain from ecumenical interaction, but they do not call themselves "anti-ecumenists", because ecumenism, understood as a desire for Christian unity, was officially adopted by the Second Vatican Council and has since been supported by all Popes. "Catholic" anti-ecumenists can be found in the " Society of St. Pius X "("Lefebrists"), excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in 1988. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI began a dialogue with them, which continues in the pontificate of Pope Francis, but it seems that they do not yet intend to accept the "inclusivist" positions of the Second Vatican Council.

For the Catholic Church, a more serious problem than anti-ecumenical activity is a certain form of complacency (both among the clergy and hierarchy, and among parishioners), when they are satisfied with the current situation and do not see the need for ecumenical activity. Therefore, Orthodox and Catholics face the common task of creating - at all levels of theological education - special courses dedicated to ecumenism (these can be called "confessional studies" or "comparative theology"). These courses should provide unbiased information about other Christian churches and offer a serious reflection on ecumenical dialogues between them and their common goal - the unity of all who profess Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind.

Interviewed by Andrey Shishkov

page 312

Permanent link to this publication: