ECUMENICAL THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION

And Orthodox Issues for the 3rd Millennium

(Published in Ministerial Formation, 90 [July 2000], pp.15-21)

1. Almost 4 years ago the ETE stream of the WCC called a major Global Consultation on the viability of our theological education, particularly in its ecumenical dimension. This consultation of the ETE, which was held in Oslo, Norway (5-10 August 1996) was meant to provide an ecumenical forum, where various insights and persons from around the globe could mutually critique, challenge, and reaffirm the present state of ecumenical theological education. But it was also meant to clarify its task for the years ahead.[1] Almost at the same time WOCATI (World Conference of Associations of Theological Institutions), held in Nairobi Kenya (27 June-3 July 1996) its second General Assembly with similar aims.[2] Both these major events on Theological Education were in fact conducted with the awareness of the tension between contextuality and catholicity;  and in both of them the “ecumenical vision” was well rooted in the original planning in such a way as to direct the attention towards how ministry and theological formation processes can further the unity of the Church according to our Lord’s last will that “may all be one” (John 17:21) for the sake of the unity and renewal of humankind and indeed of all creation.

One of the most important affirmations in both these major events, which took place almost at the end of the turbulent and divisions-creating second millennium, was the direct (WOCATI) or indirect (ETE) acknowledgment that the classical approach to theology is more and more seriously challenged from various quarters. Some may not openly admit it, very few could deny that the old understanding of theology is no longer valid, at least it has run its course.

Ever since the beginning of medieval scholasticism, and even after the Enlightenment, theology was defined as a discipline which used the methods of the Aristotelian logic. Rational knowledge was, and in some cases is still, considered as the only legitimate form of knowledge. Theological education, thus, gradually shifted away from its eucharistic/liturgical framework, i.e. away from its ecclesial, community, local context.[3]  The rational understanding of God and humanity had in fact led to a knowledge-centered and, especially in the West, to a mission-oriented theological education. Even today most Theological Institutions around the globe and across denominational boundaries, the Orthodox ones included, have been structured in such a way as to educate Church ‘leaders’, not the entire people of God; to equip priests, pastors or missionaries with the necessary means to preserve and propagate certain Christian truths or ethical norms, and in some cases even to defend old-fashioned institutions, not to build up local eucharistic communities. They lost, in other words, the community-centered and liturgically/eschatologically-oriented dimension of theological education.

Gradually, therefore, all those engaged in the planning of theological education unconsciously lost sight of the most significant parameter that really makes theology viable: The very often forgotten truth that theology is the real conscience of the living Church; that theology is first and foremost the voice of the - sometimes voiceless - Christian community and one of its most fundamental tasks; even further: that theology is neither a discipline for young people at the end of adolescence, nor a prerogative of the professionals, be it clergy or academics, but the task of the entire Christian community, the whole of laos tou Theou, who according to the well celebrated 1848 encyclical  of the Orthodox Patriarchs is the only guardian of the Christian faith.[4]

Consequently, little - if any - attention has been given to the fact that theological education is a worldwide enterprise fundamental to the mission of the Church, not in its institutional character,[5] but in its eschatological awareness of being a glimpse and a foretaste of the Kingdom of God, the proleptic manifestation of this ultimate reality that should always determine our approach to historical realities.

2. This vision of the Kingdom, which is so prominent in the Orthodox liturgical tradition, was unquestionably rediscovered and reinforced in modern times through the theological reflections within the ecumenical movement. And this awareness created for a moment an unprecedented enthusiasm among the deeply divided Christianity that the centuries-long divisions of the Church might find some sort of an agreed solution; that the given by the Triune God unity might be restored. Unfortunately the momentum, created with the establishment of WCC and reaching its climax in the 60s with the historic event of Vatican II, did not have an equally optimistic follow-up. Ironically, the ecumenical optimism and enthusiasm towards the goal of the visible unity of the Church was interrupted at the very moment an important achievement in the field of theological hermeneutics was reached with the affirmation at a world level, and a wide application as a method from the 70s onwards, of contextuality, i.e. with the recognition of the contextual  character of theology.

This great achievement has in fact created an unbridged psychological gap between the traditional Churches and the new and most vibrant younger Christian communities, especially of the South. The main reason for this unexpected, and at the same time unfortunate, development  in the ecumenical movement was the complete negation of any stable point of reference. In the post-Uppsala period, culminating at Canberra,[6] and finally coming to the “tension” WCC-Orthodox relations in Harare,[7] all authentic criteria in the search for unity and the ultimate truth were in practice abandoned.

There is no question, of course, at least on my part, that it is impossible to make a case for the unity of the Church, while being indifferent to the unity of humankind. Today it is a common view in ecumenical circles that we one can definitely speak of "differing, but legitimate, interpretations of one and the same Gospel".[8] It has become a slogan that "every text has a context", a context that is not merely something external to the text (theological position, theological tradition etc.) that simply modifies it, but something that constitutes an integral part of it.  None can any longer deny that all traditions are inseparably linked to a specific historical, social-cultural, political, and even economic and psychological context.  All these mean that the traditional data can no longer be used as a rationale for an abstract universal theology that carries absolute and unlimited authority. Finally, through contextuality, in contrast to classical approach to theology, we are no longer concerned whether and to what extent the theological positions we have to take today, and the affirmations we are asked to make, are in agreement with the tradition, but whether these positions have any dynamic reference and relation at all to the given contemporary conditions. All these achievements were further reinforced in post-modernity, which focuses attention on the particulars, the peripherals, the minorities, completely disregarding the unifying elements in all considerations, the ecumenical ones of course included.

At this point I would like to open a parenthesis and remind ourselves of the real cause of the crisis, which modern Orthodoxy experiences vis-à-vis the WCC and the ecumenical movement in general. Perhaps not all theologians in the West engaged in ecumenical dialogue are aware that the real theological rift—after almost a generation of positive contribution of renowned Orthodox theologian to the ecumenical discussions—occurred early in the ‘70s, when the late Fr. John Meyendorff warned against the danger of the ecumenical movement loosing the momentum and coherence and its determination for the quest of the visible unity, if contextuality were to be adopted in ecumenical discussions, and become the guiding principle in future theological education.[9] His reservations, I must confess, were proved right, despite the fact that twenty years later an Orthodox Theological Institution, the Theological Department of the University of Thessaloniki, in cooperation with the Ecumenical Institute of Bossey, have attempted to clarify the relationship between Orthodox theology and contextuality, and in fact positively assessed the somewhat contextual character of theology.[10]

3. It is my firm conviction that the future of ecumenical theological education lies  on reconciling these two currents of modern ecumenism; Orthodox theological institutions must immediately start a process in order to soften the existing antithesis between contextuality and catholicity. To be honest, I doubt very much whether there is a single Orthodox Theological Institution that takes contextuality seriously into consideration. I have elsewhere[11] argued for this need, and my modest contribution today will focus mainly on this extremely important task of theological education. After all, even the future of the  ecumenical movement depends to some extent on the willingness of the ecumenical partners to work towards a synthesis between the legitimacy of all contemporary local/ contextual theologies on the one hand, and the necessity - in fact an imperative, and not simply an option - of a core of the apostolic faith on the other.

In my contributions to both the ETE consultation in Oslo and the 2nd General Assembly of WOCATI in Kenya I argued that theological education, in order to be able to survive, but also to give life and lead to renewal the Church and the society at large, must have a common point of reference. Otherwise, I pointed out, we run the danger to view any local context and experience as authentic expressions of our Christian faith.[12] Nikos Nissiotis, a leading figure in theological and ecumenical matters of this Church and of the Theological School of Athens, my alma mater, had earlier pointed out that one cannot exclude the possibility of a universally and fully authoritative theology, perhaps even on the basis of the transcendent anthropology of contextual theology;[13] and this is but one suggestion that leaves open the possibility for making corrective readjustments to contextuality and reconciling it to catholicity.

Let me illustrate this issue a little more. It is argued with strength that the most important and necessary perspectives in contemporary theological education are both catholicity and contextuality: catholicity, in the sense of the search for a coherent, ecumenical, global, and catholic awareness of the theological task, and contextuality as the unique expression of it in the various particular contexts. Coherence is important in that it expresses the authenticity and distinctiveness of different contextual theologies, as well as the need to bring these contextual theologies into inter-relationship with others.[14] 

Of course, the way in which this coherent, ecumenical, global, and catholic perspective is to be achieved, is not an easy task.  And central in this respect is the concept of unity. In other words, for theology to seek for a coherent, ecumenical, global perspective requires the recognition that Christian theology, no matter how many and varied be its expressions, must have a common point of reference, a unifying element within all forms of ecumenical theological education and ministerial formation.  It is necessary to focus upon the issue of unity in both general terms and in the specific ecclesiological use of the term as the on-going search to restore the given unity of the Church.  This includes consideration of the unifying and saving nature of the Christ event, continually re-enacted through his Body, the Church, in the life-giving and communion-restoring Holy Spirit. After all, theological education is a worldwide enterprise fundamental to the mission of the Church.

This given unity of the Church does not necessarily mean a strict unified structure, but it is given expression to a broad understanding of Christian tradition.  Such an understanding affirms not only the centrality of Christology, but also the constitutive nature of Pneumatology, i.e. the normative nature of a Trinitarian understanding of Christian revelation.  This Trinitarian understanding affirms the ultimate goal of the divine economy, not only in terms of Christ becoming all in all both in an anthropological, i.e. soteriological, and in a cosmological way, but also in terms of the Holy Spirit constituting authentic communion and restoring the union of all. 

The communion God seeks and initiates is not only with the Church in the conventional sense, but with the whole cosmos.  Thus the unity of divine revelation, as represented in the broad understanding of Christian tradition, is for the entire created world, not only for believers. This understanding of unity is important to keep in mind as it challenges a potential distortion wherein unity is identified with the maintenance of denominational loyalty. This in turn can be an exercise of oppression, excluding the suffering people from salvation and from the community of the people of God, insisting in most cases on strict juridical boundaries.

This understanding of unity in ecumenical theological education informs and challenges all expressions of contextual theology. It does not locate the unity inherent within Christian theology with any ecclesiastical or doctrinal system, and recognizes the varied forms of human and social existence.  In this way, it is congruent with the methodologies and goals of contextual theology.  However, it also challenges these theologies in pointing out the indispensability of the Christian tradition as that which gives expression to the given unity of the Church. This is usually referred to as unity in time.

In my view, the main reason of the inability of modern Christianity to overcome the existing “theological misunderstandings” is the issue of the criteria of truth. And this is due to the inability to reconcile contextuality with the text/logos syndrome of modern Christian theology. It is time, I think, to distance ourselves as much as possible from the dominant to modern scholarship syndrome of the priority of the texts over the experience, of theology over ecclesiology, of kerygma and mission over the Eucharist. There are many scholars who cling to the dogma, imposed by the post-Enlightenment and post-Reformation hegemony over all scholarly theological outlook (and not only in the field of biblical scholarship or of western and in particular Protestant theology), which can be summarized as follows: what constitutes the core of our Christian faith,  should be extracted exclusively from a certain depositum fidei,  be it the Bible, the writings of the Fathers, the canons and certain decisions of the Councils, denominational declarations etc.; very rarely is there any serious reference to the eucharistic communion event, which after all has been responsible and produced this depositum fidei.

The importance of Eucharist, and of the "eucharistic theology" (more precisely of the "eucharistic ecclesiology")[15] in the ecumenical debate has only recently been rediscovered and realized. The proper understanding of the Eucharist has been always a stumbling block in Christian theology and life; not only at the start of the Christian community, when the Church had to struggle against a multitude of mystery cults, but also much later, even within the ecumenical era. In vain distinguished theologians (mainly in the East) attempted to redefine the Christian sacramental theology on the basis of the Trinitarian theology. Seen from a modern theological perspective, this was a desperate attempt to reject certain tendencies, which overemphasized the importance of Christology at the expense of the importance of the role of the Holy Spirit. The theological issues of filioque and the epiclesis  have no doubt thoroughly discussed and a great progress has been achieved in recent years through initiatives commonly undertaken by the WCC and the Roman Catholic Church; but their real consequences to the meaning of the sacramental theology of the Church, and consequently to theological education, have yet to be fully and systematically examined. Theological education should no longer treat the Church either as a cultic  religion or as a proclaiming/ confessing institution.

The Eucharist, interpreted prom the perspective of the "Trinitarian theology", is not only the Mystery of Church, but also a projection of the inner dynamics (love, communion, equality, diaconia, sharing etc.) of the Holy Trinity into the world and cosmic realities. Ecumenical theological education, therefore, and ministerial formation should focus not so much on a doctrinal accommodation or only on organization and structure (Faith and Order), or even only on a common and effective mission of the Church(es), but also on a diaconal witness with a clear eschatological orientation. In order words, on a "costly eucharistic vision”. Theological education in order to be authentic has be determined by what Fr. Ion Bria expresses with the words “Liturgy after the Liturgy”.[16]

4. With such a costly eucharistic vision, which of course has to undergo a radical eucharistic renewal,[17] our future theological education will definitely develop gender sensitivity.[18] It will also articulate a new paradigm to equip the whole people of God. And it will allow an innovative, experimental, people-centered approach to knowledge and education. Finally it will ensure that the processes of formation be relevant and renewing to individuals and communities of faith.

After all, our theological education can no longer be conducted in abstracto, as if its object, God (cf. theo-logia= logos/word about God), was a solitary ultimate being.[19] It should always refer to a Triune God, the perfect expression of communion, and a direct result of the eucharistic eschatological experience; an experience which is directed toward the vision of the Kingdom, and which is centered around the communion (koinonia), thus resulting in justice, peace, abundance of life and respect to the created world.

 What comes out of such an affirmation is self-evident: theological education should always refer to communion as an ultimate constitutive element of being, in other words it should have relevance to the relational dimension of life,[20] and therefore be in a continuous and dynamic dialogue, not only in the form of theological conversation among Churches or Christian communities in order to promote the visible unity of the one body of Christ, but also with people of other faiths, even with the secular world.[21]

 Paulo Freire in his celebrated book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 1971, has rightly criticized the traditional forms of pedagogy, the '“banking” concept of education as he called it, because it became a powerful agent in preserving the status quo, which many experience as oppressive and dehumanizing. Freire suggested a new form of education, the “problem-posing” concept, which is dialogical in nature, whereby both the educator and the educated become partners on the journey of searching for the truth. The importance to theological education of this dialogical approach is that it promises an atmosphere of creativity, but above all liberates humankind from all kinds of oppression, spiritual and physical.

In view of all the above theological education in the Orthodox world can only survive, it can only be of some real service to the Church, if it decides to deal with current issues, without of course loosing sight of the past; if it focuses attention in a substantial way on history, without denying its eschatological orientation. Christian theology, after all, is  about the right balance between history and eschatology.[22] It is about the struggle to apply the eschatological vision of the Church to the historical realities and to the social and cosmic life. To recall a famous dictum of Fr. Al. Schmemann, theology and the Church exist not for themselves but for the world.[23] A number, therefore,  of emerging issues  demand more attention in the 3rd millennium by the Orthodox.  These issues are global in their impact, impinge upon most particular societies, and are of central importance to contemporary theological task:

a. Spirituality, human rights, especially the rights of women; b. Economies of countries vis-a-vis the Divine economy, with special consideration to levels of international debt; c. The growth of materialism and the consequent marginalization of religious values; d. Intolerance coupled with the increasing ethnic and religious conflict; e. Bio-ethics, AIDS epidemic etc.; f. The integrity of creation in view of the spread of arms and the incidence of war, and especially the ecological crisis; g. Issues associated with the fullness and future of human life and human communities.

Needless to say that the list is indicative and by no means complete.[24]

5. I feel obliged, before I end my presentation, to state clearly and with all honesty, that in most Orthodox theological institutions there is no such thing as “ecumenical theological education”. And I state this, with all awareness that in the past 50 years “Orthodox theology has had profound and pervasive influence upon ecumenical discussions”.[25]

There is no doubt that the Orthodox Church, with the initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, has played an important role in the ecumenical endeavor of the past; there is no doubt that her participation in the WCC, the main forum of the multilateral ecumenical dialogue, has been vital in almost all areas of its activities; and above all, the Orthodox Church’s ecumenical commitment has now been officially, and I would dear add synodically, pronounced on a pan-Orthodox level by such high-ranking fora as the 1986 3rd Preconciliar and the 1992 Meeting of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches. However, what George Florovsky, a leading Orthodox ecumenist, believed 50 years ago can hardly be subscribed by most of our theologians. On the occasion of the establishment of WCC in the 1st General Assembly of WCC in Amsterdam, Florovsky made the following bold statement: “It is not enough to be moved towards ecumenical reconciliation by some sort of strategy, be it missionary, evangelistic, social or other, unless the Christian conscience has already become aware of the greater challenge, by the Divine challenge itself. We must seek unity or reunion not because it might make us more efficient or better equipped...but because unity is the Divine imperative, the Divine purpose and design, because it belongs to the very essence of Christianity”. Today Orthodoxy’s ecumenical awareness and commitment is seriously challenged. That is why I make a plea that all Orthodox theologians, who are seriously concerened with the visible unity of the Church—in other words, who authentically pray “for the union of all”, or to put it more boldly, who are committed ecumenists— should unite their forces to protect the ecumenical character of Orthodoxy .

There are, of course, quite a number of excuses: the growing dissatisfaction from the results of the ecumenical dialogue so far; the necessity for Orthodoxy—which has come out of the ashes in Eastern and Central Europe, where the bulk of her faithful traditionally live—for a time of recollection and search for identity. What, however, cannot be tolerated is the dangerous shift towards fundamentalism, to such an extent that some circles within Orthodoxy seriously consider, and even press in the direction of, abandoning any ecumenical effort, even withdrawing from all multilateral and bilateral fora of ecumenical dialogue. Even the term “ecumenism” arouses reactions and suspicions among many Orthodox, not to mention that even the official theological dialogue of the Orthodox Church with the family of the Oriental Orthodox Churches in some circles is still being disapproved, at least failed proper “reception”. All these are mainly due to a number of inherent perennial problems, which obviously need to be openly addressed. And this is exactly the task of the Orthodox theological education.