Archbisop Anastasios Elected WCC President
Ed. Now this . . .
Thessaloniki, 28 February 2006 (13:55 UTC+2)
Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana and All Albania was unanimously elected World Council of Churches President in the 9th general
assembly meeting held at the Roman Catholic University of Porto Alegre in Brazil.
Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyiannis congratulated the Archbishop for his unanimous election which is an international recognition and
vindication of his great pastoral work and contribution.
The general assembly meeting was held with the participation of an estimated 700 representatives of 348 Churches (Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian) from 120 countries while about 4,000 individuals also attended under different capacities among them, representatives of the Roman Catholic Church which participates actively in the World Council of Churches meetings in the past few years.
The delegates discussed issues such as the Church’s unity, the Christian identity, financial justice, violence, poverty, the AIDS
problem, problems in Latin America, etc.
The Autocephalous Christian Orthodox Church of Albania is a member of the World Council of Churches since 1994 and Archbishop Anastasios has served in a number of committees since 1963.
For the record, the World Council of Churches has helped the Autocephalous Church of Albania in its reform efforts and has funded
programs in a number of sectors.
Tuesday 28 Feb 2006 | Jacobse | OPF/NCC/Christian left, Orthodox Christianity |
Is this a naked attempt by WCC to keep Orthodox onboard? Is this a quid pro quo by Archbishop Anastasios for the “funded programs”? Does Archbishop Anastasios have any idea of the direction/state of the WCC as an institution? Does he sincerely believe in the WCC, it’s current direction, and does he have any sense of it’s failures?
Archbishop Anastasios is a man of unquestioned integrity and outstanding Christian faith and spirit. His mission to Albania was one of the most difficult assignments ever given to a Orthodox prelate. He overcame ethnic hostility and the economic devastation of post-communist Albania to successfully reinvigotate the Orthodox Church in Albania, open new churches, and even win the support and admiration of Albania’s non-Chhristian majority.
See, “Archbishop Anastasios: A Mission of Hope”
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/GageAbpAnastasios.php
If Archbishop Anastasios was able to deal with Albania’s truculent and hostile government, I think he can handle the WCC
What does “handle the WCC” exactly mean in this context? Sounds like you assume he is quite aware of the failure of the WCC as an institution. I suppose you are leaning to a quid pro quo, and that Archbishop Anastasios is ‘tough enough’ to not get caught and/or minimize the scandal…
It means that he is used to operating in a challenging political environment, winning over some adversaries and overcoming others, and successfully achieving his objectives.
The same traits (patience, faith, courage, perseverance and understanding) which allowed Archbishop Anastasios to successfully overcome Albania’s inhospitable environment for Christian missionary work and reinvigorate the Albanian Orthodox Church, should also enable him to soothe and calm the rancourous political agendas of the WCC members and rally and unite them towards more traditional Christian objectives.
Huuum… My first reaction is to hope you are correct in that he can “rally and unite” them towards a traditional Christian objectives. I however do not judge the culture at the WCC to be rancorous. It is the opposite. The culture is uniformly behind the standard uber-liberal semi-humanist, semi-Unitarian agenda of the religious left. In fact, it is the failure of the Orthodox to understand this that is part of the problem (the other part being that they often seem to willfully ignore it) of Orthodox involvement in the WCC. This philosophy (i.e. the liberal religious mindset) is quite subversive, in that it speaks to you as if you/your ideas were being considered, when in reality you are being bamboozled. I give Archbishop Anastasios about as much chance at bringing a real Christian agenda to the WCC as I do him converting the Saudi royal family. To put it another way, he would literally have to convert them in the deepest sense of the word, because at the root of liberal religious left is a philosophy in direct contradiction with Christianity.
To top it all off, even IF he was able to bring a real agenda to the WCC, what would it matter? The vast majority of the communions involved are only a few decades from be full blown Unitarians. They would be in the same position as the Orthodox: Their national church would be involving them in something that went against their basic/core beliefs. I would not wish that upon them, any more than I wish it upon the Orthodox. I ask again, exactly what IS Archbishop Anastasios doing at the WCC??
Lead but not endorse?
Can a person assume a leadership position in a group without endorsing the group itself?
Can a person assume a leadership position AND directly oppose positions taken by the group in the very recent past?
Has Archbishop Anatasios ever publicly and directly opposed positions taken by the WCC?
It is not true that persons who are not schooled in the deeper or more profound issues of theology and ecumenism, simply read Archbishop Anatasios participation as general support for the WCC as currently composed?
Clearly the answer is yes. Clearly, many critics of the WCC will be confronted with the participation of Archbishop Anatasios as proof that Orthodox can, with good conscience, participate in the WCC.
Since the WCC frequently participates in the broad public debate, the Archbishop has entered a very public field. His personal reputation for holiness, learning, and integrity will be put to the service of the WCC, it will serve to bolster the WCC as a practical matter.
There are many lapsed Christians, weak Christians, non-Christian seekers who may be influenced by Archbishop Anatasios’ participation in the WCC.
“Can a person assume a leadership position in a group without endorsing the group itself?”
No. That is a very strong “no”. What would be the point? To subversively “influence” the group from within? Have we not already been down this road in history many times over? Why stop at the WCC - why should a bishop (or laymen for that matter) “assume a leadership position” in all sorts of groups, other churches for example. Why not other religions? It is about honesty - to join a group and at the same time disagree with it’s core beliefs is simple, plain, dishonesty no matter how good your “intentions” are. It is a fundamental breakdown of the means/ends relationship. It is a sin…
“Can a person assume a leadership position AND directly oppose positions taken by the group in the very recent past?”
No, not on matters of substance that relate to the groups core values. The WCC is not a council of churches, it is a council of certain kinds of churches - it is a selective group with core philosophy/theology that simply is not Orthodox, or even Christian…
“Has Archbishop Anatasios ever publicly and directly opposed positions taken by the WCC?”
If so, why join the group? To save a remnant? I would believe this line of thinking if there was any evidence it actually took place - and that it is worth the damage to the souls actually influenced by the WCC. 70 years of Orthodox involvement reveals the opposite is true. We keep waiting for this practical turn of WCC, but every year it gets worse and worse. Certainly the vast majority of the communions slide into apostasy further every year. When is reality going to factor into the thoughts of those who support the WCC? Is your support based solely on an ideal, an idea that you have of a ‘council of churches’? If so, what reality - the real - have to become before an examination of this ideal is undertaken?
“It is not true that persons who are not schooled in the deeper or more profound issues of theology and ecumenism, simply read Archbishop Anatasios participation as general support for the WCC as currently composed?”
Low blow to those who are reasonably critical of WCC/NCC. Please, by all means, “school” us…;)
Archbishop Anatasios “personal holiness” keeps being brought up. I don’t believe it, any more than I believe the charismatic personalities of the American TV preacher land are holy men. They me be “successful” in all the ways often described. Archbishop Anatasios may be “successful” in the many we have heard with the Church in Albania, but now I wonder how. I submit his willingness (which I still believe is a quid pro quo for funding) to be compromised in such a way as exhibit A…
I know Archbishop Anastasios, although not well. He stayed at my home once when he got sick. My wife and I took care of him for two days until he got well again. I spent the third day driving him around Minneapolis and we spent the entire day talking. He is a very devout man and a real bishop.
Having said this, I think that the Orthodox from eastern countries don’t really understand the politics and culture of the west, at least not enough to avoid some glaring errors, such as Patriarch Bartholomew’s gift of a cross to Fidel Castro in the trip orchestrated by the NCC, or in this case the apparent endorsement of the WCC despite its history of supporting Marxist oppression and clear subservience to lefist political dogma. They seem to see the WCC, and to a lesser extent the NCC, apart from the political roles these organizations play in their own countries.
The same cannot be said of American participants like Fr. Kishkovsky. He seems to believe the anti-American cant.
Nicholas Gage. Anastasios: A Mission of Hope
Archbishop Anastasios. Understanding Orthodoxy: How to distinguish true mission from proselytism
John Couretas. Book Review: An Orthodox View of Contemporary Economics, Politics, and Culture by Archbisop Anstasios
“Can a person assume a leadership position in a group without endorsing the group itself?”
Well, there are probably aspects of the WCC that the Archbishop does endorse, and others which he does not. The chance to speak and listen, to understand and be understood is probably something he does endorse. This by no means endorses the various political, religious, and pagan ideologies represented in the WCC.
For example, the Archbisop is quoted as saying “I believe dialogue is better than silence, which only cultivates suspicion, and often hate.” This is something that he has much direct experience with in his own country:
http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Opinion/comm_20011023Tzimas.html
Sure, the WCC has an agenda for making him President. Christ’s disciples had an agenda also. Their agenda wasn’t His.
Can a person assume a leadership position in a group without endorsing the group itself?
Not really.
“I believe dialogue is better than silence, which only cultivates suspicion, and often hate.”
Does a statement like the above really have any real content? Any more than say, “I believe kindness is better than cruelty”, or the profound “I believe virtue is better than vice”. Really people, is this the limit of our critical thinking? Is this all we have to say and the whole methodology, apparatus, and history of the WCC is suddenly justified? I would encourage anyone who has never really thought past such platitudes to think about “dialogue” (or as Larry puts it “to speak and listen, to understand and be understood”) as it actually occurs at the modern liberal ‘round table’. Is the actual process that takes place at the WCC really conducive to “understanding and being understood”, or does the process promote something else? One place to start is reading the philosopher Stanley Fish articles about this subject in First Things from the late nineties…
In addition the statement is not even a truism. In history we have many examples where the more one group communicates and understands – the more “dialogue” that takes place – the more the groups realize how much they are in CONFLICT with each other. This is especially true in many places around the globe today where due to increase population, modern travel, etc are exposing the real rift’s between certain groups.
Finally, Fr. Jacobse may be entirely correct in that Archbishop Anastasios may simply be ignorant of the true nature of the WCC. This simply is yet more evidence of both the subversive nature of the methodology, and the need for Orthodoxy to (re)examine the theological presumptions that they use to justify their involvement…
Christopher.
Sorry, didn’t mean to offend. People like ABC Rowan Williams always cite the “deep and profound issues of theology and ecumenism” which contradict the plain message of what they are doing.
Williams will say that the vote by the Anglican hierarchy to divest from Caterpillar ISN’T a blow against Israel and those that think so just don’t understand the deeper issues and the infinite series of fine theological points that ABC Williams commands. The Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Rabbi Sacks, has lodged a protest at some of the latest lunacy of the British Anglicans.
To the average person, the Bishops participation in WCC appears to be an endorsement of WCC, plain and simple. I include myself among those average people. If there is another reason, it’s too deep for me.
Let’s recap–the Orthodox Chruch has spent 70 years under communist oppression in Eastern Europe and Russia. Prior to that it was subservient to the state in many ways since Peter the not so great for roughly 300 years.
540 years under Muslim oppression in the Middle East
200 years of unorganized, non-cannonical disunity in the Americas
Where is the experience of dealing effectively with heathens, heretics and seclurists?
In my own personal experience, it is far better when fundamental theological and spiritual matters are at stake to simply state: “I don’t agree with you (or I do) and here is why” Any attempt at dialog is really an invitation to inappropriate compromise. We do not have to be a member of the organization to support the almsgiving that they do where it is appropriate. We can no longer be naive in our inter-relations with other communions. Pray to St. Mark of Ephesus.
Here’s the real point: Two out of the three major divisions of those who claim to follow Jesus Christ are heretics. That being the case, does any dialog make sense for anyone?
Heresy is seductive because it is usually easier than the truth. Heresy also partakes of the dictum concerning money: bad money drives out good. In other words, if one mixes with heretics, one is likely to take on more and more of the beliefs of heretics.
So, which are the heretics? Make your choice and follow it–allow the Holy Spirit to take care of the rest.
I am not a supporter of the WCC but I admire the Archbishop very much. He has been the target of the enemies of Christ literally (attempts have been made on his life many times.) I also believe many Albanian Muslims have become Orthodox Christians due to his witness. I have an Albanian-American friend who is a priest. When he was assigned to a church in Boston he told me his catechism classes were always full of Albanian immigrants who were Muslims but wished to become Orthodox Christians. My friend attributed this surge in conversions due to work of the Archbishop. The Archbishop is quoted as saying,”Mission is part of the Church’s genetic material, a fixed element in its DNA. It is a gift of grace organically fused to the Church.”
Read this article about him from Touchstone:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/14.6docs/14-6pg26.html
Father Hans, there must be some aspect, or something, that the Archbishop endorses about the WCC in order to assume this leadership position. Its fair enough to admit that we don’t quite understand what that is, but to label the Archbishop as “naive” or “bamboozled” is not fair to him.
The Archbishop is an expert in world religions, has traveled extensively as an Orthodox missionary, and has been involved with the WCC since the sixties. He has the qualifications for this position, and I’m sure he is well aware of the actions and intentions of the WCC.
Note 16. Yes, there probably is something that the Archbishop endorses about the WCC. Not everything the WCC does, or has done, deserves reproach. The same is true of the NCC. Nevertheless, the failings of both organizations are quite glaring, and neither has yet given account for them. These failures bring the entire enterprise into question, IMO.
The question that needs to be asked is what is the purpose of the WCC and NCC? I’m more familiar with the workings of the NCC although I don’t see the WCC as much different in this regard. Does the NCC exist to ostensibly offer a collective voice of American Christianity, or the WCC for world Christianity? They promote themselves as if they do. Do they exist as the mechanism for ecumenical dialogue? Again they say yes, but their public stands and private actions are often one sided at best, and have served forces and entities that work against Christians at worst. Don’t forget the Canberra debacle, where some neo-pagan offered oblation to the goddess several decades back, or the support of Marxist guerillas responsible for the death of Christian missionaries during the heyday of Liberation Theology.
It might be something as simple as some Orthodox leaders are unaware of how the West perceives the WCC.* Sometimes distinctions are drawn within an organization that have no practical importance to the outside world. Think of the Anglican Church here. Every compromise was laced with benevolent language that lined the road of their self-destruction like sweet smelling flowers. It kept a lot of people on the inside pacified. Outsiders saw the fall coming long before many on the inside did.
(*This was not true of the Soviet Union who understood very well how the WCC was perceived during the Cold War and manipulated it with unusual sophistication in order to convince Western Christians that no religious persecution existed under Communist rule. See Fr. Alexander Webster’s “The Price of Prophesy
” for more information.)
I don’t recall saying the Archibishop was bamboozled or even naive. “Naive” was a term I applied to Patriarch Bartholomew’s gift of a cross to Fidel Castro, an atheist who persecuted Christians. That the Patriarch relied on the direction of the NCC which has had a love affair with Castro spanning decades, affirms my point that naivete concerning the NCC and its history caused the diplomatic missteps. The visit was as much an attempt by the NCC to foster an aura of legitimacy for itself by associating with the Patriarch, as it was for the Patriarch to project himself as a world religious leader (which the Patriarch can legitimately claim to be).
Frankly, I don’t find many things to reassure me about the NCC or WCC when I take a look at their history.
Note 15. I have Albanian immigrants in my parish, including some Muslims I have baptized into Orthodox Christianity. Muslims converting to Christianity is not something we should discount.
Father Hans, forgive me, I think it was someone else who applied those terms “naive” and “bamboozled”…
Well, regardless…I tend to think that it can be a healthy thing when we find ourselves frustrated with the political actions and/or leanings of our bishops and priests. I’m sure that even Christ’s disciples felt much frustration with Christ in this way.
Note 19. Don’t worry about the terms. It was an opportunity to clarify myself.
Your second point though… I hold the Hierarchy to the responsibility given to them by the Church: they are to guard the deposit, which is to say their primary responsibility to protect the integrity of teaching that flows from the Gospel of Christ. They are not Christ, although they represent Christ in the Church to the measure to which they abide in that Gospel. Why the Gospel? Because the Gospel, St. Paul tells us, when preached, reveals Christ.
Father Hans, I agree with you on our duties to support the hierarchy…but are you then suggesting that the Archbishop, and/or the Patriarch, may not be abiding in the gospel of Christ in this context of their respective involvement with the WCC and the NCC?
I admit that I don’t entirely understand their involvement, and it may even be frustrating, but I really don’t see their involvement as being contrary to the gospel.
Note 21. No. What I meant to say (and could have said more clearly) is that the association you drew in note 19 concerning the frustration that the disciples may have had toward Christ drew too close a parallel between the Hierarchy and Christ.
Rereading your post here again, you may not have meant this at all. My point is that too close a parallel between Hierarchy and Christ apart from the responsibility towards the Gospel that I defined, is never a healthy thing. Your point however, may have been from the other direction, ie: frustration with decisions that appear ill-advised.
Larry says;
“I admit that I don’t entirely understand their involvement, and it may even be frustrating, but I really don’t see their involvement as being contrary to the gospel.”
To which Father Jacobse says;
“Note 21. No.”
Perhaps this is the crucial question on which the question of Orthodoxy’s involvement with the WCC/NCC and other similar projects turns. The ROCOR have answered the above question with a strong “yes”. They are convinced the modern ecumenical activity is contrary to the Gospel of Christ, labeling it a heresy. While I do not find their arguments completely satisfying, I find the supporters of the WCC/NCC down right incoherent.
IMO, there are three main threads of thought one can take on this. The first says that there is nothing wrong with the WCC/NCC as they currently stand, or all they need is a little tweaking - perhaps the right “leader”. The second says that while there is nothing in principle wrong with ecumenical activity (it may even be compelling) the current manifestations of it are such that the only rational/moral thing to do is disengage. This line of thought looks at the balance of the results of WCC/NCC and says “enough - something is wrong here and the remnant can not be redeemed”. The third line of thought is the one ROCOR takes; there is something wrong with the principles and methodology of all modern manifestations of ecumenism. To put it another way, the idea itself is wrong headed.
My instinct and experience tells me that when a person, family, community, church, or institution consistently fails, and is obviously headed down the wrong road consistently over time, there is something wrong at the core of their beliefs. In other words, they are working off the wrong assumptions, the wrong principles and method to enact those principles. It’s not simply a matter of unfortunate circumstances, a “run of bad luck”, etc. No, there is something wrong at the core.
For me, a strong point of evidence that the third line of thought is the compelling one here is exactly what Fr. Jacobse says:
“the failings of both organizations are quite glaring, and neither has yet given account for them.”
It’s this lack of account that is important. If something was not wrong at the core, with the very idea of ecumenism, then what are obvious failings to those on the outside would be apparent to those on the inside. Even given the sinful tendency we all have to obfuscate our weakness’s and mistakes we still tend to (eventually) face them unless we really believe them to not be a problem.
In the late nineties I traveled to St. Vladimir’s with a friend to attend an all day seminar given by then dean Fr. Thomas Hopko. Even though ecumenism was not related to the subject matter at hand, he took every opportunity (and a few inappropriate ones) to defend his own/St. Vlad’s/Orthodoxy in generals involvement with “ecumenism”. He appeared to me to be a man who had recently been criticized, or been involved in some recent controversy, though I did not know the history. His argument can be summarized as “if the person is strong in the faith, then he can only do good for those he is talking to”. During the question and answer period a few “but what about X” were brought up by various folks. He would never address the question! He would simply repeat his argument. The REALITY of ecumenism made no difference, it was the idea, the effort, the good intentions that mattered. IMO, something is wrong with an idea that is impervious to the real…
Christopher, yes, from what I’ve read, I agree that ROCOR presents some good criticism of modern ecumenism. Stepping away from their criticism though, it seems unfortunate that this is coming from a group which, more often than not, presents itself as rather insular. Because of this, I have to wonder if their criticism serves for them the same purpose as “modern ecumenism” by hindering the true ecumenical calling of the Church.
The Orthodox Church has an ecumenical calling to sanctify everything, all of the world, and to restore the image of God in all of humanity. By most Orthodox accounts, the WCC is a hindrance to this calling, but if such criticism is used only to keep the Church from actually being ecumenical, then it is even worse than the WCC, serving the same end, and yet calling itself “Orthodox”.
There seems to be some criticism of the affiliations of Archbishop Anastasious, perhaps the WCC especially…I’ve heard also that he has sometimes been called the “Archbishop of All Athiests”. However, I don’t see any real criticism of his ecumenical methodology.
Regarding the Archbishop becoming “president” of the WCC, I know that clergy are usually forbidden from taking on political leadership positions. At least in the U.S., a clergy member could never become a mayor, senator, governor, etc. I suppose being president of a council may be a different matter though. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Larry,
I see your point about both sides being the same side of a coin - both are ways to prevent the church from it’s calling, being “ecumenical”. However, I would disagree in that I would argue they are both equally wrong in that they are both error’s. In fact, I would say the WCC is worse than ROCOR because the WCC ends up being a complex deception, where as ROCOR is still a Church. They have actual Churches where one can come in and hear the truth. They also have actual Christians that work and live “in the world” and communicate their faith to others, thus being “ecumenical”. The WCC on the other hand is a ‘council’, an institution based on the “liberal round table” where all communions come in and supposedly communicate on equal grounds but in fact don’t (see Stanley Fish’s thoughts in First Things).
I am also curious on the question of Bishops being “presidents”, members, etc. of extra-Church institutions and organizations. Particularly one so close to the actual function of a synod - a ‘council of churches’. There does seem to be a material difference in that governments carry with them the power and responsibility of the force of law - the point of the sword. Still, it comes the question of whether a man join a group and not truly “endorse” it’s core values. The supporters of the WCC seem to commonly operate under the mistaken assumption that the WCC does not have any core values. Besides the obvious fact of their quasi-religious condemnations (read: political propaganda), they in fact do operate under the core value of ‘a council’, which of course means the “liberal round table”. They even explicitly operate under the core value of being a collection of Christian’s…