THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT

THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT

by Metropolitan NIKODIM *

In 1961 the Russian Orthodox Church joined the World Council of Churches, namely a feZZowship of churches (see Constitution of the WCC, Article 1) whose primary aims are to contribute as much as possible to the unity of all Christians and to give joint Christian service to mankind in the spirit of the Gospel’s commandments to love and to be loyal to God’s will. It is a well-known fact that, while maintaining a positive attitude towards the ideas of ecumenism, the Russian Orthodox Church was formerly extremely cautious about expressing ecurnenism in concrete form. For many years after the First Assembly of the WCC at Amsterdam in 1948 the Russian Orthodox Church studied the activity of this new ecumenical body in order to see what possibility might exist to collaborate with it without prejudicing the principles of Orthodoxy.

Moreover, from the very outset it was clear to the Orthodox that collaboration with the World Council of Churches, still more membership of it, would inevitably mean plunging into the Protestant element or, if you prefer, undergoing a sort of kenosis, because the voice of Orthodox witness at ecumenical meetings and in the WCC documents would always be submerged by a chorus of diverse, but essentially Protestant, opinions. It is only by increasing the number of representatives of the Orthodox Churches, so as to reflect the real importance of Orthodoxy in Christen- dom (and at the same time to improve the quality of that representation) that a balance can be created between the two confessional groups or systems, and their forces equalized. But that does not always guarantee a maximum of mutual understanding. I must frankly say that this situation will not disappear until all the Christian Churches have attained unanimity in their confession of faith, i.e. until all the Churches belonging to the World Council of Churches hold the faith which was the faith of the ancient undivided Church. It is clear that this confession of

* The Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod, NIKODIM, is the Chairman of Department of External Church Affairs, Orthodox Church of Russia, USSR.

THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT 117

the true faith, or Orthodoxy if you like, does not necessitate resembling the form in which Orthodoxy expresses itself today in this or that local church, including the Russian Church. We Orthodox avoid the kind of statement made at ecumenical meetings, because we do not think that constant reference to the difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism is conducive to “peace and mutual upbilding” (Romans 14. 19). How- ever, at a moment as responsible as the present when, as leader of the delegation from the Moscow Patriarchate, I have to explain to the Assembly of the World Council of Churches the point of view of my own Church concerning the ecumenical movement, I feel it is my duty before God and before my conscience to do so with all the frankness and all the sincerity of a witness who does not adapt his remarks to the liking of his audience (I1 Tim. 4. 3) because he knows that he would then be deceiving them as well as himself (I1 Tim. 3. 13).

In order to show that that is not simply my personal opinion I will quote what a very eminent Russian Orthodox theologian said on this subject : His Holiness Patriarch Sergius. In his well-known work “The Church of Christ and the dissident Communities” he wrote : “Among educated Christians one avoids bluntly raising the question of the true Church. One prefers to affect ‘wider’ views by affirming, for instance, that ‘the divisions between the confessions do not reach up to heaven.’ The divisions within the Church are imputed to the ambitions of the hierarchies and to the intransigeance of theologians. It does not matter much whether a man is Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant ; as long as he leads a Christian life he need not worry. . . But this broadness of view, which is so convenient in daily relationships and so reassuring¶ cannot satisfy those who are really children of the Church and who are fully aware of their own beliefs and convictions. They feel that this ‘broadness of view’ really conceals scepticism, a lukewarm faith and indifference about the salvation of the soul.” (Published in French in Messager, No. 21, 1955, pp. 9-32.)

What was it then which incited the Russian Orthodox Church to join the World Council of Churches ? My answer is this : firstly, the love of brethren who feel how baneful are the divisions between Christians, and who declare their desire to eliminate the obstacles to fulfilling the will of our Lord Jesus Christ “that they may all be one” (John 17.21). Secondly, awareness of the importance of coordinating the efforts of all Christians, in their witness and service to men in the complex conditions of the

118 THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

secularized world of today, subject to rapid changes, divided, but aspiring to unity. The fact that the Russian Orthodox Church has joined the World Council of Churches cannot be regarded as an ecclesial act in the ecclesiological sense. It is connected with those aspects of its own life and activity whose free expression does not impose direct responsibility on all the local Orthodox Churches - that responsibility which is incumbent upon every part of the sacred Body of Christ in face of the plenitude of the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church as a whole. This really is a fact, as is shown by the way in which the Russian Orthodox Church joined the World Council of Churches. All the local Orthodox churches declared their desire for membership of the WCC without any preliminary pan-Ortho- dox consultation. The Conference of representatives of some of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches held at Moscow in 1948 was not pan-Orthodox, nor were the consultations which followed with the Churches which had attended that Conference. (During those consultations the Russian Orthodox Church reversed its decision and informed them that it intended shortly to join the WCC, as the result of modifica- tions in the WCC’s activities.)

The question of joining the WCC was studied successively by the Holy Synod, then by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, so that the local church was not called upon to give a formal consent through its hierarchy, its clergy and its members, because they were represented in the local Council. This is significant if one takes account of the firm conviction in Orthodoxy as a whole, that it is the actual body of the Church, namely the people (including of course the hierarchy and the clergy) who are the guardians of piety, always in the hope of pre- serving their faith unchanged in accordance with the faith of their fore- fathers (see Circular Letter of the Eastern Patriarchs, May 6th, 1848).

These limitations in the official sanction of the Russian Orthodox Church’s entry into the World Council of Churches do not mean, however, that any doubt exists about the legitimacy of this act. Not only the decisions of the hierarchical power meeting in Council, but also those of the Synod, enjoy complete authority and confidence in our Church. However, I repeat, the way in which the Russian Orthodox Church took the decision to join the WCC clearly indicates that this act was never considered as having an ecclesiologically obligatory meaning for the Orthodox conscience. It would be more exact not to speak of the Rus-


sian Orthodox Church “joining” the WCC , still less “being admitted” to the WCC, but rather of an agreement between the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church and those of the World Council of Churches for representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church to enter into permanent collaboration with representatives of other Churches belonging to an association called the World Council of Churches. The Assembly held at New Delhi in 1961 gave its consent to a collaboration of this kind. In speaking of the World Council of Churches I must point out that, from the very outset, there has been a certain confusion or ambiguity in the definition of the nature of that body.

The “Committee of Thirty-Five” which met in London on the 8th July, 1937, was convinced that the time had come to form a World Council of Churches, namely a permanent organ whereby those Churches could accomplish their common ecumenical tasks. This Council was defined as an association of church-representatives pursuing the interests of the “Life and Work” and “Faith and Order” movements.

The Conferences held at Oxford and Edinburgh shortly afterwards approved the suggestion and decided to merge the two movements (“Life and Work” and “Faith and Order”).

The Conference which met at Utrecht in May 1938 approved and adopted the following Basis for the World Council of Churches, which was afterwards confirmed at its first Assembly at Amsterdam in 1948 :

“The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which accept our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.” (Amsterdam Report, page 197.)

It is absolutely evident that an organ set up by Churches, an association of their representatives, is not at all the same thing as an association (or society) of the Churches themselves. Just as the United Nations Organiza- tion is not at all the same thing as the united nations themselves. The decision concerning the Authority of the Council, adopted by the Amsterdam Assembly in 1948, is somewhat equivocal in character. It says :

“The World Council of Churches is composed of churches which acknow- ledge Jesus Christ as God and Saviour. They find their unity in Him. They have not to create their unity ; it is the gift of God. But they know that it is their duty to make common cause in the search for the expression of that unity in work and in life. The Council desires to serve the


churches, which are its constituent members, as an instrument whereby they may bear witness together to their common allegiance to Jesus Christ, and co-operate in matters requiring united action. . . Moreover, while earnestly seeking fellowship in thought and action for all its members, the Council disavows any thought of becoming a single unified church structure independent of the churches which have joined in consti- tuting the Council, or a structure dominated by a centralized administrative authority. “The purpose of the Council is to express its unity in another way. Unity arises out of the love of God in Jesus Christ which, binding the constituent churches to Him, binds them to one another. It is the earnest desire of the Council that the churches may be bound closer to Christ and therefore closer to one another. In the bond of His love, they will desire continually to pray for one another and to strengthen one another, in worship and in witness, bearing one another’s burdens and so fulfilling the law of Christ.” (Amsterdam Report, pages 127-128.)

This text shows that the World Council is a fellowship of Churches which realize their unity to be incomplete, and which have begun to seek a way of expressing this unity more fully. For this purpose they have formed themselves into a fellowship with common tasks, common activities and a common life.

On the other hand, however, the World Council is an instrument created by the Churches which have joined it, in order to express their unity, an instrument whose task is to serve the Churches which formed it in order to witness. . . collaborate. . . and unite between themselves. In this sense the World Council of Churches is a unified ecclesial structure (although not “special” nor “independent”) of the united Churches, a structure which is not “directed by a centralized administrative power” but which is served by a special, centralized controlling machinery.

At the meeting of the Central Committee of the WCC at Rochester in 1963, Dr. Visser ’t Hooft presented a report on the “Meaning of Member- ship in the World Council of Churches,” in which he pointed out that some confusion exists about the definition of the World Council of Churches. He said, the time seemed to have come to draw a clear dis- tinction between the World Council of Churches and the new ecumenical reality.

“Now it would seem that we must carefully distinguish between the World Council of Churches and this new ecumenical reality. . . to transfer the description of the emerging ecumenical reality to the World Council


is to confuse the instrument with the product which is brought in being with the help of that instrument. It is through the World Council or at least to a large extent through the World Council that many have come to realize dimensions of the life of the Church of which they had beforehand mainly theoretical knowledge. But that does not change the nature of the WCC as an instrument at the service of the churches.” (Minutes of Central Committee, Rochester, page 138 .)

This text shows that Dr. Visser ’t Hooft considers it necessary to explain that the “ecumenical reality” (which he seems to regard as a sort of embryo of a true Una Sancta) is not born within the World Council, which is only an instrument for the churches. But this ecumenical reality does appear in the member-churches themselves, and in their association called a Council of Churches. Orthodox doctrine is unchangeable in its essence, which may be de- scribed as the sacred, living Tradition of the Church. The Church faith- fully guards and explains (without marring it) the Apostolic and revealed heritage of the faith entrusted to it. As for Orthodox theology as a scientific discipline, it is natural that it should develop and perfect itself. From this point of view ecclesiology can also pass through phases of progressive development and renewal. However, this process cannot be bound by any external norms or formal obligations. It takes place naturally, freely expressing the new facts and conditions in which the life of Christ’s Church goes on. At the time the Russian Orthodox Church “appreciated the report entitled The Church, the Churches and the World Council of Churches adopted at Toronto in 1950 by the Central Committee of the WCC, which helped to clarify the interconfessional nature of the WCC.” (Address by Arch- bishop Nikodim at the Council of Bishops in 1961. See Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1961, No. 8, p. 19.) In that report (known as the Toronto Statement) the following points are the most important :

“The World Council cannot and should not be based on any one particular conception of the Church. It does not prejudge the ecclesiological problem. There is room and space in the World Council for the ecclesiology of every Church which is ready to participate in the ecumenical conversation and which takes its stand on the Basis of the Council. . . No Church is obliged to change its ecclesiology as a consequence of membership in the World Council. Membership in the World Council does not imply the acceptance of a specific doctrine concerning the nature of Church unity.”

(Paragraphs 3 and 5 . )

THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

It is precisely these theses which have enabled the Russian Orthodox Church (through its hierarchs) to give its consent to its entry into the World Council, in the sense indicated above. With regard to Part IV of the Toronto Statement (“The Assumptions underlying the World Council of Churches”), in spite of a series of ideas contained therein which are perfectly acceptable for the Orthodox, the Russian Orthodox Church considers it as a special opinion which is not in any way binding upon the Churches belonging to the WCC. All the more so because it implicitly contains ideas about the Church which seem to be perfectly acceptable to Protestants but which are incompatible with the ecclesiological principles of Orthodoxy. Within the scope of this brief address I cannot go into that question : it would necessitate a careful analysis of Part IV of the Toronto Statement, and would undoubtedly arouse a long discussion. But in order to show why we consider this text merely as a personal and arbitrary opinion, it suffices to recall that it is concerned with “the ecclesiological implications of membership in the WCC” (see introduc- tory sentence to Part IV), whereas Part I11 clearly affirms that “the World Council does not prejudge the ecclesiological problem .” (111, paragraph 3. ) Many of the World Council documents express the idea that the task of its member Churches is to reveal the unity which already exists between them. I have already quoted these words from the decision taken at the Amsterdam Assembly “on the authority of the World Council” where it is said that the Churches which constitute the World Council have no need to create their unity ; that is a gift of God ; but their duty is to seek together to manifest this unity in life and action. (Amsterdam Report, p. 127.) “They know, that it is their duty to make common cause in the search for the expression of that unity in work and in life.” The same idea recurs in the Statement on “The Purpose and Function of the Basis” adopted at the Evanston Assembly, which says : “The churches enter into rela- tion with each other, because there is a unity given once for all in the person and work of their common Lord, and because the Living Lord gathers His people together .” (Evanston Report, page 306 .)

These views were often expressed, and still are. They show that Christians are aware of the sin of their division. Admittedly an initial unity does exist, in the person of the one Lord and Saviour. There is also a certain degree of unity in thought, hopes, ethical norms, conduct, etc., in spite


of the state of division. But how can one confine oneself to reassuring statements about the existing state of things and ignore what a great number of Christians miss : the real, essential unity which belongs to the integral body of the Church of Christ, which we Orthodox call “catholicity” ? On this subject I cannot avoid mentioning the well-known definition of unity first worked out at St. Andrew’s in 1960, and then included in the report of the Section on Unity which was adopted by the whole Assembly at New Delhi in 1961. This definition reads as follows :

“We believe that the unity which is both God‘s will and his gift to his Church is being made visible as all in each place who are baptized into Jesus Christ and confess him as Lord and Saviour are brought by the Holy Spirit into one fully committed fellowship, holding the one apostolic faith, preaching the one Gospel, breaking the one bread, joining in common prayer, and having a corporate life reaching out in witness and service to all, and who ( i s . those who are baptized into Jesus Christ and confess him as Lord and Saviour) at the same time are united with the whole Christian fellowship in all places and all ages in such wise that ministry and members are accepted by all, and that all can act and speak together as occasion requires for the tasks to which God calls his people.”

(The New Delhi Report, page 116.)

Despite the affirmation in this same Report that this description of unity “does not presuppose any one particular doctrine of the Church” (ibid., page 117, paragraph 4), it is perfectly evident that it contains a concept of unity which is completely Protestant. Unity is regarded as a gift from God belonging, despite the divisions, to the whole of Christendom. This unity is not always visibly manifest to the necessary extent. Christen- dom as such is thus considered as essentially the one, complete body of the Church of Christ. As for division, it is not understood as the destruction of inner unity and a painful crippling of certain parts of the body of the Church. It is merely regarded as an inadequate awareness (in the minds of divided Christians) of their inner health, and as a lack of courage to proclaim that health to the world through acts which manifest their unity. The description of unity contained in this Report can refer only to the future when - after intercession, ecumenical collaboration and seeking have come to an end - that unity has been attained.


The sin of division consists not in insufficient awareness of allegedly existing unity, but in the destruction of that unity, thus injuring some of its parts and harming the whole body of the Church of Christ. It is true that the unity of the Church is a gift of God, but only in a well-defined sense. It is a fact that there exists now and will exist until the consum- mation of time a divine objective basis of ecclesial unity in Christ, i.e. the possibility of intimate communion with Him through faith and through participation in sacramental life, especially in the true Eucharist, on condition that full obedience is paid to the fulness of the divine revelation. In itself this objective aspect, outside our obedience or dis- obedience to the divine revelation, does not assure complete, essential unity in any part of the Christian brotherhood. Only the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which is the full, healthy foundation of the Body of Christ, possesses the true and full unity, because it is obedient to the voice of the divine Truth. Outside its limits the essential unity can be lost to a greater or lesser extent. It can be incomplete, or may almost disappear. Full and perfect unity can be appropriated by the whole Oekumene not through a simple “manifestation” or “visible expression,” but solely by re-building the broken unity, by returning to complete obedience to the truth. This will enable the limits of the whole Christian brotherhood to become identified with those of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church. I will not speak in detail about the progress of the ecumenical movement between the Assembly at New Delhi in 1961 and the Assembly at Uppsala in 1968. In my view progress has undoubtedly been made, and that gives one hope for the future. One has only to study the work done by the Faith and Order Commission to see how much wider and deeper the search has grown for the treasures of the one undivided Church, its doctrine and its experience. We warmly welcome the statement expressed in recent documents of the Faith and Order Commission “that patristic studies are a necessary part of ecumenical concerns and must be expanded,” and “that common study of patristic texts should continue, and further recommend a study of ‘The Fathers and the Bible’.” (New Directions in Faith and Order, Bristol, 1967, p. 48, pp. 153-154.)

We also appreciate many aspects of the practical work of the World Council of Churches. Compared with the past it has greatly increased in importance as the result of fresh contacts, especially with the Roman Catholic Church, the Christian Peace Movement, and other Christian


groups and movements. However, we do not close our eyes to certain phenomena which we regard as negative, and which are still preventing the World Council of Churches from adopting a more decisive position that is more in harmony with its principles in face of the intolerable violations of international peace and infringements of the sovereign rights of peoples who are victims of aggression. In such cases we Chris- tians must not seek a balance of forces which usually satisfies no one. We must call a spade a spade and oppose evil, so that well-being and peace may be man’s heritage, as the child of God.

We sincerely hope that in the process of our future ecumenical cooperation Christians will become increasingly aware of the true nature of the divisions which still exist within Christendom. That will not only deepen their understanding of the sin underlying those divisions ; it will also strengthen their sense of responsibility so that they put an end to any arbitrary stubbornness which injures the body of the Church and brings it into disrepute, besides causing deep inner suffering. Through close cooperation between Christians, mutual enrichment and the sharing of experience, we hope that Christians will become a great moral force that merits the respect of all who long for peace, justice and really human relationships. When confronted by problems, if the Churches belonging to the ecumenical movement share the same attitude based on their devotion to Christian Truth and inspired by the love of Christ, their unanimity will bear its perfect fruit and will act irresistibly, for “our appeal does not spring from error or uncleanness, nor is it made with guile.” (I Thessalonians 2. 3. RSV.)

I should like to add something about some of the ideas contained in Dr. Blake’s report at the meeting of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches at Heraklion, Crete, in 1967. In this report, which was very informative and well-written, he says that in his view “the way for the World Council of Churches to serve the ecumenical movement in our time is to become as radical an influence for a revolutionary new obedience to Jesus Christ as we must be a conservative force to preserve for the world the ancient Gospel of the transcendent God who makes Himself known in Jesus Christ, His Son our Lord.” (Report of Central Committee, Crete, August 1967, page 102.)

We Orthodox strongly approve this prudent conservatism in the sphere of faith, as we are admonished by the Apostle in the Epistle to the


Hebrews : “Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings.” (Hebrews 13.9.) For these are the gifts bestowed by God on His Church : “some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” so that we may “no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” (Ephesians 4. 11 and 14. RSV.) We welcome in Dr. Blake’s report those passages in which he stresses the importance of pan-Christian firmness in face of heretical modern trends in theology, which are endeavouring to situate on this earth the only Son of God who is in the bosom of the Father (John 1. 18) and to humanize completely the Word which was with God in the beginning. It was only later that “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (Gal. 4 .4 ; John 1. 14) and now sits at the right hand of the Father as God-Man. “Although I am sure that the posture and attitude of the ecumenical movement towards the proponents of ‘new theological views’ must be pastoral and attentive” (said Dr. Blake) “I believe it to be highly important that we do not give reason to anyone to suppose that we as a World Council of Churches are calling into question the being of the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ who is revealed in the Bible to the eye of faith.” (Report of Central Committee, Crete, 1967, page 101.) However, a pastoral attitude towards those who support modernist views must not on any account give the impression that we are prepared to accept any attitude whatsoever in the interpretation of the Christian faith. There is a limit, beyond which “free thinking” becomes destruc- tive of Christian faith, and of Christian unity.

With regard to Dr. Blake’s ideas about “a revolutionary new obedience to Jesus Christ,” and about the influence of the WCC in this direction, we Orthodox consider it our duty to show a certain prudence and reserve here. Undoubtedly “the renewal of mind” which enables one to discern “what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12. 2) is an extremely important and constant law of the Chris- tian life. If they are not to die spiritually, the People of God must, through a free manifestation of His will, collaborate constantly with the Spirit of God in the renewal of hearts (Ezech. 18. 31) and of “a willing spirit” (Psalm 51. 12). However, it is difficult to say what form this process ought to assume today - evolutionary or revolutionary. We are not infallible prophets. When we hear statements like the following :

THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT

“It is quite clear that controversial revolutionary changes are required of us and our churches in our time” (Report of Central Committee, Crete, 1967, page 103 paragraph 7), we involuntarily feel that it is a somewhat risky generalization. Possibly it is natural for Protestant theologians not only to think, but also to speak, in terms of a stormy dynamism which tends (like the prophet Elijah) to expect the Lord to manifest Himself in the earthquake and the fire rather than in the “still small voice.” (I Kings 19. 1 1-12.)

In any case the Orthodox Churches do not feel any such burning need for a “revolutionary” renewal of their ecclesial life. This is not due to any routine, nor to ignorance of the changes taking place in the world, nor to unawareness of the “spiritual ecumenism” that is so aptly stressed in the Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council (Part 8). It is due to the very nature of Orthodoxy which prefers quiet uggiornu- mento to violent reforms which often have sad and irreparable conse- quences. One example of this is the well-known “renewal” which took place within the Russian Church in the 1920’s. It would be desirable for all the arguments concerning the need for renewal in church life to be subject to ecumenical discussions ; they should be included in the official documents in an absolutely clear form, so as to avoid any suspicion, or misunderstanding, and too vague generalizations.

In his report on “The Transcendence of God” given in Crete, Dr. Blake also said that the Churches belonging to the World Council of Churches must always be ready to transcend the influence of their environment, which might limit or alter their judgment. “The attempt to transcend all human limitations and the faith that God makes such transcendence possibIe is at the heart of the ecumenical movement.” (Report of Central Committee, Crete, 1967, page 102, last sentence.) Of course, everything must be spiritually discerned, especially the gifts of the Spirit of God. (I Cor. 2. 14.) However, such an extreme spiritualization of the Church‘s thought, which endeavours to transcend all human limitations and to rise above all national and state interests, is not always in accordance with the will of God and with the true spirit of the Gospel, which reminds us to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Matt. 22. 21.) It is better to follow the plain, but sound advice of the Apostle : “Test everything ; hold fast what is good.” (I Thess. 5 . 21.)

127


Lastly, Dr. Blake said that “the World Council of Churches must find the way to speak in the faith that the guidance of the Holy Spirit will be available to us all together in a way that that guidance is not so fully available to any of us separately.” (Ibid., page 102, last paragraph.) This can only be regarded as a personal opinion. Although the possibility of illumination from on high cannot be completely excluded (“the Spirit blows where it wills,” John 3 . S), in the Orthodox view there is no adequate ground for such generalizations. One of the constant temptations of the World Council of Churches is the desire of certain ecumenists to discover a “new ecclesiological reality” among the churches belonging to the WCC. Of course, it is possible in principle to transcend the Christian consciousness ; this would mean the disposition to unite on the basis of the apostolic heritage, preserved in its integrity and expressed by the early undivided Church. I will go further : the disposition to transcend it in this way must be our common hope ; the faith that God will enable us to do so may really be called the heart of the ecumenical movement. If the association of Churches belonging to the WCC really manifested (with the necessary fulness) the characteristics of the Church of Christ such as holiness, catholicity and apostolicity, it would mean that with the aid of the Spirit of Truth the nature of that fellowship will really be transformed in the way desired by the God-Man, the Son of God, who prayed His heavenly Father “that they may all be one.” (John 17.21.) For the moment, unfortunately, there is no sign of any transcendence of this kind ! The slowness with which confessional unity is growing is manifest not only in the divergences in the doctrinal documents adopted by the WCC but also in the fear recently shown when the question was raised of modifying the Basis of the WCC. Some ecumenists compared this attempt with the attempt “to open Pandora’s box.” At New Delhi no calamity occurred ; although a new Basis was adopted, Pandora’s box did not fly open. But no one is likely to propose any modification in the Basis, for instance by making membership in the World Council of Churches conditional on confession of the Nicene Creed.

In any case, it is impossible to speak of any essential change in the nature of the churches belonging to the WCC as long as ecumenical cooperation is centred exclusively on joint action between representatives of two main church-groups: the Orthodox and the Protestant, while


the direct dialogue between these same Churches does not yet seem able to bear sufficient fruit. That is just why we Orthodox firmly insist on the inviolability of the principles laid down in the Toronto Statement, as expressed in its third part. We fully support the remark made by one of our ecumenical brethren and mentioned by Dr. Visser ’t Hooft in his report on “The Meaning of Membership in the World Council of Churches.” (Report of Central Committee, Rochester, page 138) : “ ‘Let us continue in fellowship, without too much self-consciousness which might become an occasion for pride.’ It is better to live with a reality which transcends definition than to live with a definition which claims more substance than exists.” It is with optimism and hope that we perceive all the complications and difficulties of our common Christian path towards unity, inspired by love for the God-Man Jesus Christ our Lord, striving to increase faith and love for Him in the whole world, we will go forward. We will continue the ecumenical movement; for before us, like a Good Shepherd (John 10.4) goes the Saviour and Redeemer of the world, He who makes all things new (Rev. 21. S), He who is the way, and the truth and the life (John 14. 6).

Translated from the French.

Documents

THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT