Can fifty years of dialogue overcome a millennium of estrangement? Rev. Fr. John Chryssavgis, Executive Director of the Huffington Ecumenical Institute at Hellenic College Holy Cross, brought this question to mind with his opening remarks on the evening of October 6th, 2024, an occasion dedicated to celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the International Commission for the Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue, at the Maliotis Cultural Center in Brookline, Massachusetts. The evening featured a panel discussion led by Anglican and Orthodox members of the official dialogue, who each contributed a short reflection on one of seven Agreed Statements produced by the dialogue to date. In addition to providing an amicable setting for the delegates to share a stage in recognition of their common purpose, admiration, and love, the evening imparted those present a sense of the tenor and trajectory of the official Anglican-Orthodox dialogue since its inception in 1973.
Regarding the initial question prompted by Rev. Fr. John’s remarks, a straightforward answer is that five decades of dialogue—and merely dialogue, despite the ardent desires of some on both sides for much more—have not undone ten centuries of schism, let alone brought Anglicans and Orthodox any closer to sacramental reunion. Admittedly, at this mature stage of Anglican-Orthodox encounter, dialogue progresses only so far along the path toward intercommunion before impasses are inevitably reached; the ordination of women and the inclusion of the filioque in the Nicene Creed within the Anglican Communion remain especially vexatious realities from an Orthodox perspective. Compounding this frustrating difficulty is the temptation to indulge in feeble attempts at working around points of contention. On the one end, losing sight of the primary goal can devolve the conversation into theological hair-splitting; on the other, glossing over crucial differences can result in watered-down, platitudinal speech. Fortunately, the “honest dialogue” shared by Anglicans and Orthodox over the preceding five centuries—as characterized by Metropolitan Athenagoras of Belgium, the Orthodox co-chair of the international commission—has neither sought to erase the past nor ensure the future; but it has also not devolved into academic futility or resorted to equivocation. Painfully, however, it has failed to provide clear-cut resolutions to the complex disagreements at hand.
At this juncture, the natural question to ask seems to be: Why proceed with the dialogue at all? Yet it is also at this point, nearing despair, that the courageous, inspired, and insightful leadership of the dialogue’s participants comes into full relief, and one begins to see the guiding ethos of their shared project. In a word, the Anglican-Orthodox dialogue is animated by hope, as all truly Christian endeavors are. Christians, Anglican, and Orthodox alike are called upon to rein in our impulsive reactions to things as they seem, to look beyond surface-level readings of events, to discover the presence of Christ in our midst—to see His hopeful light shining through the darkness. To witness this invigorating and clarifying light requires the humble submission of human thought and opinion to the power of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, one assumes a patient and discerning comportment towards His providential self-revelation, a longing watchfulness captured most succinctly by the fervent supplication: Thy will be done.
Quite fittingly, then, the Agreed Statements published so far by the dialogue convey exactly this sense of humble wonder and hopeful anticipation. Since the Moscow Statement of 1976, the delegates have sought to elucidate a “common mind” transcending the outward differences of their respective traditions and establishing a higher consensus. This noble effort, however, was somewhat undermined by the first canonical ordinations of women to the presbyterate within the Anglican Communion. Sensing a betrayal of the dialogue’s principles, at this critical moment, the Orthodox churches were forced to reconsider the nature of their involvement in response to the unilateral actions of their Anglican counterparts. The ensuing “wintry” period of dialogue subsided in 1984 with the Dublin Statement, inaugurating a new phase of collaboration roughly characterized by a focus on Anglicans and Orthodox “saying things together,” wherever and whenever possible. In recent years, the dialogue has largely set aside discussing the burning issue of intercommunion in all its particulars to make headway in addressing more practical items of shared concern.
From the outside looking in, the shift away from an explicit focus on achieving intercommunion seems to signal a backslide in the dialogue. According to the panel members, however, new horizons of unity have presented themselves for exploration. The most recent Agreed Statements address topics about Christian anthropology, ecology and creation care, death and dying, as well as bioethics. These documents reflect the shared concern of Anglicans and Orthodox for preserving the image of God present within the human person against the distorting influences of particularism and secularism. While the prospect of intercommunion remains close to the hearts of many—the Rt. Rev. Michael Lewis, the Anglican co-chair of the international commission, ascribes to it a permanent place on the dialogue’s “agenda of longing,” even if not the working agenda—it nevertheless remains a distant reality. Far off but still in view, it glimmers like a beacon whose light discloses a daunting gulf of difference separating Anglicans and Orthodox today.
Of course, being consigned by difference to merely “saying things together” does not confer upon us the simple satisfaction of being able to do things together. Again, the same light that is the object of our hope simultaneously illumines the many obstacles standing in the way of its attainment. Confronting this mournful reality, we tend to forget that dialogue itself is an act of doing. Sustained dialogue requires effort and sacrifice on both sides to foster the necessary conditions for mutual understanding. When we conflate the end for how it is attained, we minimize the positive power of simply being together—the fundamentally Christian virtue of koinonia in all its practical manifestations. As Christ promised His disciples, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). His constant guiding presence among us is only qualified by the conditions that we gather together, and that we do so in His name. So long as Anglican and Orthodox believers of all stripes continue to gather and proclaim with one voice the redemptive power of His Incarnation and the hopeful promise of His Resurrection, how can we not be confident that He is in our midst, working in and through us according to His will?
Upon further reflection, perhaps fifty years of dialogue marks a wondrous achievement, worthy not only of celebration but of thanksgiving. In matters of time and healing, scripture provides the proper framing for placing whatever concerns or frustrations we might have with the apparent progress of our human efforts into perspective:
“But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:8-9).
We celebrate this dialogue not simply because saying something is better than saying nothing at all as if silence and estrangement constitute an acceptable baseline for Christian fellowship, and by merely agreeing to talk, both parties find themselves safely beyond this threshold. Rather, we give thanks that this dialogue has drawn us closer together, as God intends for His people: that in Him, we “all may be one” (John 17:21). Here, the Anglican-Orthodox dialogue is uniquely instructive because it persists despite the irreconcilable differences of its participants. That these differences cannot be easily overcome seems to cast the dialogue in a penitential light. We are wont to see in it some kind of shared punishment through which we might be mutually informed in the ways of unity. Yet as an opportunity to search for God in the face of another person, especially another person who also claims to be a Christian—it is ultimately more like a precious gift than a penance.
Whenever we doubt the efficacy of dialogue, we must recall that God cherishes a moment of unity shared in His name more than He despises a prolonged period of dissension. Whenever we quibble over the limited scope of our agreement, we must be confident that God rejoices more heartily over the return of a single lost sheep to the fold than the well-being of an entire flock. Whenever we grow sick over division, we must remember Christ’s injunction to first be reconciled with our brothers before offering up any gifts at the altar of His worship. Spanning fifty uninterrupted years, the Anglican-Orthodox dialogue testifies to the verity of these teachings; that through the overwhelming power of God’s love manifest in us, we might cast aside all lingering animosity and ignorance; and that by sharing moments of unity with fellow Christians, we might participate more fully in timeless realities.
Author: Benjamin Malian, First Year Master of Theological Studies (MTS), Hellenic College Holy Cross School of Theology