Metropolitan Kirill – We should bear witness to true faith in all places and in all times so that at least some may be saved

Q. What were the reasons for the Russian Orthodox Church joining the World Council of Churches in 1961 despite the fact that the 1948 Conference of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches had adopted a resolution condemning ecumenism?

A. Actually, the decision to join the Council was far from being taken in one sitting, and it was not easy to take.

We know that the Church is a divine-human organism with its earthly part not just living in society, among people of other faiths or non-believers, but also responsible before God and people for preaching the word of God, for the moral state of the people. Our Church had minimal opportunities for preaching at the Soviet time. And we saw in our membership in the WCC a chance to fortify our position within the country through coming out into the international arena. Besides, the ‘political’ and social work of the WCC in the 1960s and 70s included anti-war initiatives, criticism of various forms of racism and fascism, struggle with poverty and with nuclear proliferation. We had no objections against these programs. We did not and do not consider them to be in contradiction to our Christian conscience. On the contrary, in joining WCC programs in these areas, we followed the Lord’s commandment: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’ (Mt. 5:9).

Theologically, the membership in the WCC in the 60s was also more justified since at that time the Council already built its work on the basis of the Toronto Declaration, which did not only affirm the faith in the Holy Trinity as basis for Christian cooperation, but also stated definitely and clearly that the Council did not claim any power over member churches, nor any right to give instruction to churches or to speak on their behalf. It was stated quite definitely that the WCC was only a forum called to serve churches in their relationships and did not have and could not have an ecclesiology of its own.

As you can see, contrary to the mythology created around the WCC’s alleged claims to be a sort of ‘Super-Church’ the Council has always been only a forum for Christians of various confessions.

Nevertheless, we were far from accepting everything in the Council’s basis and its theological work. We considered it necessary to bear witness to Orthodoxy in the Protestant milieu. The World Council of Churches also gathered strength and international authority, and we could not allow the considerable part of Christendom represented in it to have a distorted view of Orthodoxy. Certainly, there were representatives of other Orthodox Churches, including archpastors, pastors and theologians, who emigrated from Russia after 1917, working in the WCC at that time. But they were few and they often had to yield to pressure from other confessions. In this situation, we could not stand aside.

Q. Your Eminence, the question arises immediately at this point about the Orthodox sharing communion with the Protestants and Catholics. There are a lot of stories that this practice did exist in the WCC.

A. That’s good that you have reminded me about it. With all seriousness and responsibility I state that representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church have never come to communion with the non-Orthodox and have never let believers from other Christian communities to come to the Cup.

I will quote a document devoted especially to ‘intercommunion’ and drafted by the WCC Faith and Order Commission as far back as 1952: ‘The possibility for interconfessional communion between churches which require uninterrupted apostolic succession in consecration of bishops and non-episcopal churches is excluded, and this affirmation is final’.

I can give you another example. The WCC assigns one day during its assemblies for the Orthodox liturgy. And some Protestants always complain loudly that they were not admitted to communion. This is a rule which has never had any exceptions.

Q. Your Eminence, what about ‘the theory of branches’ then? Many Orthodox people abroad, and some in Russia as well, are convinced that the WCC membership presupposes the acceptance of ‘the theory of branches’ and the existence of a certain inherent unity of all Christian Churches, which only needs to be ‘made visible’?

A. It is another popular myth about the WCC. I do not mean ‘the theory of branches’, which is really shared by most of Protestant communities, but the allegation that this theory is shared by all the WCC members.

I would like to state absolutely clearly that for Orthodox Christians there can be no doubt that the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Throughout the history of the WCC, none of its Orthodox participants have supported the so-called ‘theory of branches’ as it totally contradicts Orthodox ecclesiology.

Q. What can you say about the present state of the WCC. Many speak and write today about a crisis of the ecumenical movement. Perhaps the WCC will die and there will be nothing to speak about?

A. Perhaps. The crisis in the ecumenical movement is linked first of all with the crisis that has swept many Protestant communities which are rapidly heading towards extreme liberalism and radical modernization of their religious life, rejecting the basic norms of doctrine and Christian morality. I mean first of all the ordination of homosexuals and ‘blessing’ of same-sex marriages. Cooperation with communities having such practice is out of question, of course. Thus, we have had to break our long-standing contacts with the Episcopal Church in the USA because it consecrated an open homosexual as bishop in 2003. Later last year, we broke relations with the Church of Sweden because of its decision to bless the so-called same-sex unions.

Similar tendencies were felt in the World Council of Churches as well. Orthodox Churches strongly protested against the influence of this processes on the Council, but their resources were limited because the Orthodox are a minority in the Council.

Then in 1998 the inter-Orthodox meeting in Thessaloniki adopted, on the initiative of our Church, a statement expressing “concern of the Orthodox for some actions of the WCC (‘certain tendencies in the life of some Protestant member churches of the WCC, reflected in the WCC debate’) and their feeling that the existing structure of the WCC makes the meaningful Orthodox participation increasingly difficult and for some even impossible”.

That same year, the Assembly in Harare set up a Special Commission for the Participation of Orthodox Churches in the WCC, which included both Orthodox and Protestant participants.

I will say straight, we are satisfied with its seven year-long work. First, the voting procedure was replaced by a consensus procedure – which excluded the possibility for the Orthodox to find themselves a minority in settling major theological and ethical problems. Secondly, for those churches which are willing to work in the WCC but do not wish to be its members, a special category of ‘churches in association’ with the WCC was established. Thirdly, a Standing Committee for Consensus and Cooperation was set up, with the equal Orthodox and non-Orthodox membership (8 Orthodox and 8 non-Orthodox members). The task of the committee is to monitor the WCC agenda so that it may not include items for debate unacceptable for the Orthodox. In other words, if before the Orthodox had to make their case, still remaining a minority without an influence on final decisions, now any opinion is taken into account or at least registered. Therefore, it is no longer possible to say that a majority has voted in favour of a particular disputable decision of the WCC on behalf of all the members. If we had a similar procedure earlier there would have been, I am sure, much less mythology around the WCC and I would not have had to repeat for the nth time that Orthodox members of the WCC did not share intercommunion and were not engaged in building some ‘syncretic Church’.

It was certainly a victory, and not only within the WCC. It was declared to the whole Christendom that the Orthodox would not tolerate any discussions or decisions on issues contradicting their faith and their conscience. It was shown to the whole Christian world that the apostolic tradition and genuine Christian morality did not die, that there are Churches who live up the commandments of Christ and urge people to come to their senses and give a rebuff to immorality leading to eternal perdition.

And already the Assembly at Portu-Alegri this year did not even raise issues concerning the rights of sexual minorities or women’s ordination.

Q. Your Eminence, many are concerned about so-called ‘common prayers’ together with the non-Orthodox. Is it true that for many years the Orthodox members of the WCC participated in such prayers?

A. After many Protestants have embarked on the path of extreme liberalization of their theology and morality thus moving far away from the norms of faith and life of the apostolic Church, representatives the Russian Church have stated that they will not take part in common prayers. Sometimes we attend them in silence and that mostly lay people, not clergy. By the way, the Special Commission has stipulated an opportunity for holding so-called ‘confessional’ prayers during WCC meetings. We often conducted Orthodox divine services during these meetings.

Q. And what about the political aspect? It seems to be still essential in the work of the WCC. Is it really the Church’s affair to talk about politics?

A. Why, of course! If an obvious evil or injustice is perpetrated in various parts of the world, should the churches keep silent?

For instance, the WCC from the very beginning spoke strongly against the NATO bombing, addressing demands to the UN Security Council and making appeals to the heads of states involved in the coercive actions. The WCC repeatedly sent special delegations to various countries in former Yugoslavia. They met with both state officials and religious leaders, especially with His Holiness Patriarch Pavle and hierarchs of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

The WCC adopted a great number of statements condemning the violence against the local population and expressing support for the Serbian Orthodox Church. Let us mention the most vivid of them.

Thus, in March 1999, the WCC, the Conference of European Churches (CEC) and the Lutheran World Federation published a demand that the bombing of Yugoslavia should be stopped. The document expressed support for the statement made by His Holiness Patriarch Pavle on March 25, 1999, appealing to all countries and nations to stop the violence.

On June 24, 1999, the WCC and CEC issued a special statement titled ‘WCC and CEC appreciate Serbian Orthodox Church appeal’, giving a high appreciation to the Serbian Orthodox Church’s demand that the Yugoslavian government should resign ‘for the sake of peace and people’s salvation’. The statement pointed to the cooperation that has been maintained between the WCC, CEC and the Serbian Orthodox Church for many years and gave a high appraisal to the efforts of His Holiness Patriarch Pavle to support the Orthodox population in Kosovo. The document gave the assurance that the WCC and CEC would help and support the Serbian Orthodox Church just as other Churches as long as the arduous situation lasted.

On December 10, 1999, the WCC and CEC released a protest against the destruction of Orthodox churches and holy places in Metohija and Kosovo, expressing support for the Serbian Orthodox Church.

On October 6, 2000, the CEC made a public appeal to pray for the peoples of Yugoslavia. The appeal pointed to the special role played by the Serbian Orthodox Church in the efforts to stop the violence and people’s suffering.

On August 20, 2002, a statement of the WCC and CEC was published expressing concern for manifestations of violence against the Serbian Orthodox Church in Kosovo and the destruction of Orthodox holy places there. How can we withdraw from participation in such initiatives?

These are examples concerning one of the most acute political problems. It should be added that the WCC’s stand on the globalization issues, its view of many global economic and social processes and its attitude to conflict situations in various countries and regions are close to the position of our Church. For instance, the views of the Russian Orthodox Church and the WCC on the war in Iraq fully coincide.

Q. Does it mean that the Russian Orthodox Church’s participation in the WCC will continue?

A. Now we intend to continue it and perhaps even to intensify it, since the World Council is a good platform both for preaching and asserting the values and interests of the Orthodox throughout the world. It should be also remembered that consultative work is carried out between national Orthodox Churches within the WCC. In view of the fact that pan-Orthodox conferences are not held for well-known reasons and the pan-Orthodox process has been impeded, the World Council often becomes the only platform for meetings of Orthodox participants to discuss the burning problems of today between themselves. By withdrawal we will isolate ourselves from this consultative process among Local Orthodox Churches. It should not be ruled out that it would be to some people’s liking. It is a well-known fact that in Orthodoxy there are forces which take badly any success of the Russian Orthodox Church and are interested in its weakening. If Christendom does not hear the voice of the Russian Church it will have to listen to other voices. It may lead to a breach of balances in universal Orthodoxy, which have been maintained with great effort thanks precisely to the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church in the whole world. A withdrawal from the WCC implies a weakening of the position of the Russian Church within the Orthodox family as well as in the whole world including Russian society, which is very much concerned for inter-confessional and interfaith relations. The demand that the Russian Orthodox Church should isolate itself can come either from those who do not know what is going on in the WCC and what the real role of the Russian Church has been in the entire complex system of inter-Christian and interfaith relations or those who consciously seek to restrict its influence and to weaken its authority.

However, if the WCC major members continue to deviate from the foundations of Christian theology and morality we will have to review the forms and the very possibility of our further participation.

Q. Do you think that dialogue with non-Orthodox people will really keep them on the moral position?

Q. In some cases it will, in others it will make them think. We, Orthodox people, tend to overlook the fact that a great many people in the modern world have just never heard anything about authentic Christian morality or consider it to be long antiquated.

We must bear witness to the true faith in all places and at all times so that ‘by all means some may be saved’ (cf. Cor. 9:22). It is wrong to think that since the time of persecution against the Church is over in Russia we don’t have to continue the international Christian dialogue. And should we let today’s western ‘post-Christian’ world go wherever it wants?

It seems to me that it is necessary to participate in dialogue with everyone who can make an influence on society for the better. Sometimes the very fact of dialogue, its themes, information about it in the mass media, is already a sobering and instructing influence on many people.

Last May a very interesting conference took place in Vienna between representatives of our Church and Roman Catholics on the theme “To Give Europe a Soul’. It was about the need to return to the continent the Christian soul it has lost or has almost lost. To this end we should defend Christian values against secularism and relativism. At that conference we stated together with the Catholics that European countries today as never before need to have moral education strengthened since its absence or underdevelopment tends to lead to destructive consequences, such as growth of all kinds of extremism, birth rate decline, environment pollution, violence. The principle of moral responsibility just as the principle of freedom should be consistently lived up in all spheres of human life – politics, economy, education, science, culture, mass media. Since religious organizations are not separated from society, the efforts of parish and monastic communities, church schools and universities, cultural and social centers for developing personal moral responsibility should be positively recognized by society and state.

It is a very correct attitude. We should not keep silent and watch indifferently people coming down, but we should insist that Christian morality should be taught to people and taught openly. And the fact that we make such statements together with the Catholics is not at all injurious to the task; quite the contrary, the authorities in various countries will find it difficult to dismiss a common opinion of the Orthodox and the Catholics. The conference in Vienna deserves to be given the highest assessment in both Orthodox and Catholic countries. The Protestants however, who are members of the Ecumenical Council in Austria, were exasperated: Why do you hold such important conference without us? Well, who is against? Next time, we will hold a conference with those Protestants who have remained faithful to the Christian way of life.

It is my conviction that we should maintain contacts with other traditional religions as well, especially today when the most violent military conflicts have often a religious taint. How can we refuse to meet representatives of Islam, Judaism or Buddhism if such meetings and dialogues help to stoop war or expose those who use religion as a cover for their most cruel and selfish designs?

Our Church has maintained dialogue with society within the World Russian People’s Council. The 2004 Council adopted a Code of Moral Principles and Rules in Economic Activity, which has been welcomed by many businessmen and officials. At the same time, there was strong criticism and derision in response to it. They said: All this is of interest only for the internal church milieu. And then we asked Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists to comment on the document. They all supported it. This has given the Council’s document a special authority.

Last April, the 10^th World Russian People’s Council was held in Moscow. It was attended by Orthodox Christians and representatives of other confessions and faiths. Among the central events at this forum was the adoption of a Declaration on Human Rights and Dignity, which, while not opposing the secular system of rights, points out that ‘there are values which are not below human rights. These are the values of faith, morality, things holy, the Fatherland. When these values and the implementation of human rights come into conflict, society, state and law should combine both in a harmonious way’. I would describe this document as unique. It is a reminder of the Christian origin of the notion of rights and obligations that people have before God and one another. But we are against idolizing human rights as a religion with a new value system. Freedom of religion should not be made dependent on other human rights, not less but also not more important. I refer to the cases where, for instance, believers in some western countries cannot, speaking in public, call homosexuality a sin.

This summer a World Summit of Religious Leaders took place in Moscow. This forum focused on morality. As His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia said in his speech, there has been a tendency in the West in recent times ‘to marginalize religion. People often think freedom is all-permissiveness. But all religions have moral values which place certain obligations on people and it is very important that these spiritual and moral values should be preserved in our time’.

Certainly, the massage adopted by this important interfaith meeting is not an obliging document. Nevertheless, the Summit and its final document reminded the whole world that ‘the human being is the Lord’s unique creation whose existence reaches eternity. The human being should not become either a commodity or an object of political manipulation or a part of the machine of production and consumption’. It is for the task of asserting these truths in Russia and in the world and opposing the destructive spirit of this age that we need inter-Christian and interfaith dialogue.