Competing orthodoxies: can the East face Rome? (Of Several Minds).

Many evaluations of the papacy of John Paul II have mentioned his desire for Orthodox-Catholic reunion. The chances are, sadly, not at all good. Although there was a brief springtime following Vatican II, the relationship between the churches has been decidedly icy in recent years. At times this has been due to Catholic tone deafness--Rome has made some insensitive moves with regard to the Russian Orthodox Church--but it is also a result of what can only be called a certain fearfulness and defensiveness on the part of the Orthodox. This can be attributed in part to the fact that for much of its history most of the Orthodox Church lived under either Communist persecution or Islamic domination, and it has not quite become used to freedom in recent years. (It is interesting that the dialogue has gone best in countries where no one religion is predominant, or attached to national identity.)

But there is more to it than that. In the March issue of First Things, Richard John Neuhaus quoted extensively from what he called a "remarkable address" delivered by Professor John H. Erickson, the newly appointed dean of Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary in Crestwood, New York, at last year's meeting of the National Workshop on Christian Unity. Erickson touches on many currently troubling trends in Orthodoxy. He points out that while some Orthodox believe in a dialogue that might lead us to greater unity, "not all Orthodox would agree. ... Some would take Orthodox claims to be the one true church in an exclusive rather than an inclusive sense, so that outside the canonical limits of the Orthodox Church as we currently perceive them there is simply undifferentiated darkness, in which the pope is no better than a witch doctor. How are we to evaluate these conflicting views? The exclusive view today claims to represent true Orthodoxy, traditional Orthodoxy. In fact--as I could argue at greater length--this `traditionalist' view is a relatively recent phenomenon, basically an eighteenth-century reaction to the equally exclusive claims advanced by the Roman Catholic Church in that period. Nevertheless, this view has gained wide currency over the last decade."

The Orthodox were prominent in the ecumenical movement, which was especially helpful to them during the Communist era; since then, those who oppose ecumenism as a Western delusion have caused the withdrawal of the Orthodox Churches of Georgia and Bulgaria from the World Council of Churches. Erickson writes of the "parallel monologue," where groups are seen as so incommensurate that real dialogue is imposible, and this is true not only of reactionary Orthodox: "These days many people are saying much the same thing: women, gays, people of color, the poor, those marginalized in various ways, and even white males of the West whose position in the world now feels threatened. We are all tempted to say, `I am situated within a unique interpretive community. I have no need of dialogue with you or anyone else. Indeed, no basis exists for dialogue with you.'"

It is ironic that this essentially postmodern point of view should be held by people who insist that they are the guardians of ancient Orthodoxy. It is, thank God, not the only Orthodox way, and a new book by Michael Plekon gives us some refreshing counter-examples. Living Icons: Persons of Faith in the Eastern Church (University of Notre Dame Press) offers profiles of ten Orthodox Christians, and there is a fearlessness that characterizes all of them, and an openness that contrasts refreshingly with the attitude of those we might call neotraditionalists.

One of them, Father Lev Gillet (1893-1980), incarnates the spirit of the best Orthodox ecumenism. Gillet was a convert from Catholicism, but made it clear to Catholic family and friends that he had renounced nothing in becoming Orthodox. The way he was received by Metropolitan Evlogy of Paris shows something of the same spirit. The metropolitan simply invited Father Lev to start celebrating the Divine Liturgy with him. Gillet was for years a chaplain to the community founded by Mother Maria Skobtsova, also celebrated in Plekon's book. She was killed in a concentration camp for her aid to the Jews. From the start, Gillet was active in interfaith dialogue, and his books, many written under the name "A Monk of the Eastern Church," continue to appeal to Christians of every tradition.

It is not that there are not important differences among the churches. What has to be remembered, though, is that we have nothing to fear from engaging in serious dialogue, and so much to gain. At present, the Catholic Church has been more open to us than we have been to them, and that is a shame. While Orthodox might question some of the assumptions behind John Paul's Ut unum sint (That They May Be One), there is no denying that it is a heartfelt invitation to dialogue, and it has not been received as graciously by Orthodox leaders as it should have been. The final questions raised in John Erickson's address are essential: "We may still be convinced of the desirability of Christian unity. We may even be convinced of the need for Christian unity. But how convinced are we of the possibility of Christian unity? How many of us really believe that in Christ, crucified and risen, it is possible for us to overcome division, to understand each other's situation, to make each other's pain and joy our own? These are some of the questions that face each of us involved in the ecumenical movement today."