6. Orthodoxy and non-Orthodoxy

The topic of the relationship between Orthodoxy and non-Orthodoxy was also among the issues discussed at the Local Council of 1917-18. A "department for the unification of the Churches" was even created; this department managed to hold seven sessions before the closure of the Council, considering, in particular, the topic of the possible reunification of Anglicans and Old Catholics with the Orthodox Church. Subsequently, the topic of heterodoxy was discussed by theologians of the Russian emigration, among whom there were many active figures in the ecumenical movement.

The topic of ecumenism is widely discussed today in church circles. The church community is divided into supporters of ecumenism and its opponents, and the latter are much more numerous than the former. At the same time, there is no discussion between them: the parties do not want to hear each other. If there is a polemic, then it is politicized to the utmost: the topic of ecumenism is used as a bogeyman, accusations of "ecumenical heresy" are brought against church hierarchs and theologians in order to discredit their activities. In the same vein, the topic of the possible withdrawal of the Russian Church from the World Council of Churches and other ecumenical organizations is discussed.

The author of these lines has to constantly participate in the work of such structures as the World Council of Churches and the Commission "Faith and Order". I must admit that the more I come into contact with these structures, the more critical my attitude towards them becomes. The theological discussions that take place at the meetings of Faith and Order seem to me to be very far from what the Orthodox Church lives today. And in the World Council of Churches, the position of the Orthodox in general is completely unsatisfactory: they do not have a real influence on its agenda, since this agenda is formed by the Protestant majority. Many of those who are involved in the work of the Council, aware of the danger of isolationist tendencies within the Orthodox Church, at the same time cannot but see that participation in the work of the existing ecumenical structures created decades ago, in completely different cultural and historical conditions, is unproductive, since these structures have outlived their usefulness.

It seems to me that we need a dialogue with non-Orthodoxy, but not in the forms in which it is now being conducted in the World Council of Churches. We need some other forum where Orthodox Christians would feel at home, and not as guests. In addition, it is necessary to develop bilateral dialogues. Meetings between the heads of the Churches and representatives of their leadership are very important: only through personal communication can the numerous barriers that exist between Christians of different confessions be overcome. But no less important are meetings of theologians, and at different levels, both official and unofficial. In order to participate in such meetings, we need theologians who are not only in perfect command of the riches of their own tradition, but also who are well acquainted with the heterodox tradition with which they enter into dialogue. There are practically no such specialists in the Russian Church today.

We need to take into account the experience of the ecumenical movement of the 20th century on a new level, taking into account the experience of the ecumenical movement of the 20th century, to theologically comprehend the problem of church divisions, schisms, attitudes towards non-Orthodoxy and relations with non-Orthodoxy. A variety of views have been expressed on this problem in Russian theology: from the complete denial of the grace of the heterodox churches to the complete denial of the reality of the existing church division. And now there are those who believe that "human barriers do not reach heaven," and there are those who, on the contrary, are convinced of the impossibility of salvation for the non-Orthodox. Obviously, a certain difference in views here is quite acceptable and natural. And one should not expect that all Orthodox Christians will take the same position on this issue. But whatever position this or that member of the Orthodox Church expresses, it is necessary that behind this position stand not only neophyte pathos or zeal for the purity of Orthodoxy, but also deep knowledge. For any position has the right to exist only when it is reasoned and theologically justified.

It is necessary to comprehend the deepest crisis in which the world ecumenical movement finds itself now. At first, it was just a "movement": there was a lot of spontaneity, enthusiasm, a lot of hope. At its origins were outstanding personalities, inspired theologians, such as Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov and Archpriest George Florovsky (for all the difference in their positions, they were united in supporting this movement as the most important inter-Christian initiative). However, over time, there were fewer and fewer theologians of this magnitude in it, and the institutional factor became more and more important. The ecumenical movement became bureaucratized and lost much of its original enthusiasm. This is one of the reasons that by the end of the 20th century, many became disillusioned with ecumenism.

Of course, ecumenism is not limited to the World Council of Churches and similar institutions. It exists at the level of individual Churches, and at the level of individual communities, and even at the level of individual families. Life itself often puts people in situations where they are forced to be "ecumenists." Mixed marriage, in particular, leads to the fact that the family lives as if simultaneously in two church traditions. But even ecumenism at the everyday level requires a theological foundation, and the problem of mixed marriages must be solved at the theological level as well.

Theologians must also seek an answer to the question of the future of Christianity in the third millennium. For all the divisions that exist in Islam, we cannot deny that this religion is monolithic, at least culturally and morally: it has managed to create a strong civilization that conquers more and more new frontiers. Does "Christian civilization" exist in the modern world? Are Christians united in the face of the challenges of the current era, such as atheism, nihilism, humanistic liberalism? What will the Christians of the third millennium oppose to all these phenomena that challenge Christianity and threaten its very existence?

All these issues should be resolved in dialogue with Christians of other confessions. The Great Jubilee of the Coming of the Lord Saviour into the world, which Christians greet as divided, often hostile to each other, is another occasion for such a dialogue to receive a new impetus, a new content, a new inspiration.

But there is also a need for a discussion on a local scale, within the Russian Orthodox Church, on the whole range of issues related to inter-Christian coexistence and interaction in the 21st century. In the course of this discussion, there should be a reception of all that has been done so far by the Church in terms of ecumenical cooperation, as well as the development of a strategy for further action. Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad speaks about this:

Today we have a unique opportunity to include all healthy theological forces in the process of reception – theological schools, monasticism, hierarchy, clergy, theologians. The time has come to begin a serious discussion of the participation of the Orthodox Church in the ecumenical movement in the pages of the church press. This should be a serious and thoughtful discussion, and not a malicious altercation. And the discussion should be led by people who are theologically educated, responsible, and spiritually experienced. Neophyte fervor in such a discussion is completely out of place.453

However, the problem lies precisely in the fact that we still do not have enough people who are theologically educated and responsible, and uneducated and irresponsible people enter the discussion (or rather, into the squabble). It is therefore necessary to have a new generation of theologians who would be competent enough to participate in such a discussion. It is also necessary to abandon biased approaches and stereotypes that often nullify any meaningful dialogue. Finally, there is a need for a healthy internal church climate, which would presuppose the existence of such a discussion and the right of its participants to their own opinion.