Final Thoughts

In his speech at the Second European Ecumenical Assembly in Graz , Austria , the president of the Council of European Bishops Conferences, Cardinal Miloslav Vlk, expressed an important thought: “West and East advance in ecumenism with different velocities.” The Christian East has lived under the conditions of artificially repressed time for too long to fail to painfully feel the difference in the covered distance now. As a result, today we have a stalemate situation in interchurch processes at least on three levels.

Level one: West-East relations

As was mentioned above, the Christian world today is faced with the problem of the transformation of the Slavic East. This is associated both with the issue of the different character of Eastern Christianity and the issue of its theological backwardness. The twofold character of this problem is often left unnoticed, which negatively affects ecumenical processes.

Thus, on the one hand, the Christian East still protects its characteristic features, which it considers integral, from changes, not noticing that some of them are the result of backwardness. It was always difficult for Orthodoxy to differentiate between the spirit of tradition and its historic forms. Orthodoxy's concentration on the archaic past and its theological unpreparedness to explain the “signs of the time” at the turn of the millennium results in a conscious or unconscious desire of Eastern Orthodox to be isolated in the “fortress of their truth” (Patriarch Athenagoras).

However, the present tendency of Eastern Slavic churches towards self-isolation cannot last without being self-destructive at the same time. This self-isolation is not only indicative of the shock caused by a sudden upset of the balance of power but also of the efforts of the mentioned churches to make the Christian world consider their interests. After a new balance of power is established and, most importantly, after the restoration of the potential capabilities of Eastern theology, which was traumatized by various dictatorships, the churches will surely begin a new stage of ecumenism because they are directed to it by the vector of development of civilization itself. The current idiosyncrasy of international Orthodoxy with respect to the word “ecumenism” will be either overcome at the new turn of history or will lead to the creation of another term. However, the phenomenon of the convergence of Christian churches will continue to exist, regardless of its name.

On the other hand, the West sometimes sees what is organic and integral for Eastern Christianity as unambiguously backward. The East will continue to be characterized by its theological conservatism and devotion to tradition. Therefore, the West is faced with the task of not only a profound recognition of this integral identity but also comprehension of its providential importance for humanity in general. Evolutional (and therefore, ecumenical) importance is carried not only by the theological adaptability of Western Christianity, which allows humanity to “feel out” possible ways of convergence of the churches quickly, but also by the theological conservatism of Eastern Christianity, which prevents “tying” ecumenical formulas to a certain historical period or temporary fashion. It is important for Christianity not only to recognize the signs of each age without being tied to any of them , but also to avoid being carried away by the illusions of a certain age and to continue to belong to eternity.

Level two. Relations with the Moscow Patriarchate

It will not be possible to reorganize the Christian space of the Slavic territories without an appropriate response to the problem of Moscow . The current stalemate situation in this area of interchurch relations lies in the fact that one should consider wrong both the possible proposals, namely, further “cajoling of Moscow” in the manner of ostpolitik and, on the contrary, ignoring Moscow's interests and breaking ecumenical dialogue with it. It is the fact that, in one's effort to avoid one extreme, one inevitably gets into another one, that is indicative of the crisis on the “Vatican-Moscow” line. However, this situation is a classical result of the inertia of ecclesial thinking and lack of new ideas.

A suggestion to consider the issue of Moscow in its dynamic interconnection with the issue of Kyiv is one of the possible keys to the solution of this stalemate. All earlier attempts to affect Moscow in a positive way have been made through ignoring the interests of Kyiv. The time has come to recognize that this way is also wrong. Kyiv as the centre of St. Volodymyr's baptism has a special place in the Moscow Church 's consciousness, being the centre of its legitimisation. One can persuade the whole world that Ukrainian churches are too primitive to deal with. But as soon as the official rhetoric of St. Danyil's monastery is silenced, loud echoes of history are being evoked, where the role of Kyiv ( Ukraine ) is equal to that of the life-giving roots.

Therefore, the objective is not to make Moscow disown its Kyivan roots. It will never agree to this. On the contrary, Moscow should be engaged in a civilized solution to the Ukrainian “knot.” The task is to reveal for it the harm of its stereotypical attitude to Kyiv, and the prospects of other ecclesial approaches accordingly. The role of the world churches in this regard may be invaluable. But one has first to work out solutions advantageous for Moscow to be able to propose them to the latter. Therefore, the inertia in the approaches of the world Christian community to the “Moscow-Kyiv” church system is also harmful, as it leads to a loss of the momentum of the ecumenical movement and to marking time.

It is worthwhile mentioning another negative result of politically-engaged ecumenism: it is not only ineffective but it also leads to deformation of the spiritual principles on which the ecumenical movement is based (or is supposed to be based). The increasing dissatisfaction at the bottom of the ecumenical movement is probably the best barometer to warn about this deformation. The ecumenical sentiments of Christians have been sacrificed to the Moloch of interchurch diplomacy for too long. Discussions during the Second European Ecumenical Assembly in Graz showed that, in the eyes of many Christians, such diplomacy turns from a completely legitimate and necessary means of coexistence of churches into concealing the ambition and pride of the “Christian powers of this world.” Ignoring this attitude could lead to deepening the crisis of the churches, which today is rather significant as it is.

Level three: Attitudes to the Ukrainian churches

It will be impossible to reorganize the Christian space of the Slavic territories without an adequate solution to the problem of the unity of the Church of Kyiv . In this way, a problem that seemingly is solely Ukrainian assumes a distinct ecumenical importance. The previous period of history has been characterized by the marginalization of the Ukrainian churches and subordination of their interests to the interests of world centres whose motivations were not always solely Christian. During that period of history, the Ukrainian churches were non-standard “stones” most often rejected by the builders of the Christian community. The current achievements of human civilization allow one to assume that, during the new turn of history, antagonistic power reactions in interchurch life will be increasingly bridled. This will give the Ukrainian churches a certain historic opportunity. Therefore, it is very important that the previous tendency of world Christian centres, suppressing the troubled voice of these churches, be changed into assisting them in meeting their neglected needs and using their hidden ecumenical potential as soon as possible.

However, the realization of this task also requires overcoming the stereotypes of the ecclesial (ecumenical) thinking of the world Christian community. One cannot further ignore the proposals of the Ukrainian churches as being inconsistent with established patterns and, therefore, allegedly harmful to the ecumenical process. One has to understand that Ukrainian Christians feel too much a lack of theological and ecclesiological training to be able to present their ideas in such language and using such a conceptual system that will make these ideas understandable and interesting for non-Ukrainians. Assistance in this regard from well-disposed Christian theologians of the world would be invaluable.

Therefore, only joint efforts will allow us to get out of this stalemate situation. I am convinced that it is possible to harmonize the legitimate interests of all concerned parties, including both the recognized centres of Christianity and the still fragmented Church of Kyiv in a reliable and consistent manner. In order to find the desired model of agreement, all parties should overstep the limits of established stereotypes, which have assumed an inadmissibly sacred character in our imperfect souls.