Kidd a-o Relationships

7/30/2019 Kidd a-o Relationships

1/29

The Spirit of Anglican-Orthodox Relationships in America

Nathaniel Ogden Kidd

6-Febuary, 2012


2/29

As of 2012, the Anglican and Orthodox Traditions in America have been engaged

in an official process of contact, conversation, and negotiation for a full 150 years. The

formation of an official committee to negotiate relationships with the Eastern Christian

traditions (the Russo-Greek Committee, formed in 1862) in fact pre-dates the formation

of any similar body in England by two years (viz., The Eastern Churches Association,

formed in 1864). Further, preceding the ecumenical watershed of the 1910 World

Missionary Conference in Edinburgh by almost fifty years, and the formation of the

World Council of Churches by almost ninety, the American Anglican-Orthodox

relationship is among the oldest of all modern ecumenical engagements. And indeed,

until the past fifty years or so, formal ecumenical relations for the Orthodox were

almost entirely limited to relationships with the Anglicans. 1

The story of this relationship, however, remains virtually untold. Five pages of

background notes on relationships between American Anglicans and Orthodox

appear in a 1977 edition of Sobornost.2 A few introductory notes adorn the pages of the

1972 Handbook of American Orthodoxyissued by the Episcopal Council on Relations with

the Eastern Churches. 3 Around two pages of general information on Anglican-

Orthodox relationships are given in the 2007 Ecumenical Handbook produced by the

1 Stanley Harakas, in A Communion of communions: one Eucharistic fellowship : the Detroit report and papers of the triennial ecumenical study of the Episcopal Church, 1976-1979 , ed. John Robert Wright (Seabury Press, 1979).2 E.R. Hardy, Background Notes on Anglican -Orthodox Fellowship in the United States, Sobornost (7:5) 1977, 395-401.3 Episcopal Church. Joint Commission on Ecumenical Relations. Council on Relations with the Eastern Churches.,Handbook of American Orthodoxy (Forward Movement Publications, 1972).


3/29

Episcopal Church, about half of which addresses the American history. 4 But beyond

these, not even an attempt at a comprehensive narrative exists. 5

There are some scattered notes about these relationships compiled here and

there: Project Canterbury has catalogued some of the papers of the Russo-Greek

Committee; the ambitious work of WC Emhardt to build Anglican-Orthodox

relationships in the 20s; some correspondence between the Presiding Bishop and the

Patriarch of Moscow in the 40s; and several other assorted documents. 6 Occasionally

an obituary in Sobornost or St. Vladimirs Quarterly will drop a tantalizing hint about a

key American figure in the conversation. 7 A precious few events and figures stand out

of that history and attract periodic special attention; notably, the iconic friendship that

emerged between Bishop Grafton and St. Tikhon in the first few years of the 20 th-

century has been investigated in detail by a m asters thesis and at least a couple of

weighty articles. 8 By and large, however, Anglican-Orthodox relationships in America

4 I do not know if this is resource is formally published: it is available online athttp://archive.episcopalchurch.org/documents/ecumenicalhandbook2007.pdf , pp. 26-27.5 Bryn Gefferts 2009 tome Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans is the first substantial attempt to record the history of the Anglican-Orthodox relationships in the 20 th -c. from any angle. Geffert, however, makes no distinction betweenthe geographical spheres of the relationship; and most of his discussion is concentrated on the official dialoguethat took place in Europe. His treatment of American sources is seriously lacking.6 Project Canterburys collection of documents on Anglican-Orthodox relations can be found athttp://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/index.html. It should also be noted that the Papers of the Russo-GreekCommittee have been reprinted in a 2001 edition edited by Edward Kasinec and J. Robert Wright; printed byNorman Ross Publishing, New York.7 Of particular interest is the obituary of Bishop Lauritson Scaife, written by Paul Anderson. (SVOTS Quarterly, 14:4,1970, 229-271) Anderson, another key player in Anglican-Orthodox relationships in America, lists many of the keyplayers over two generations of the dialogue, and indeed, expresses a hope that their efforts be given treatment ina book. This work remains to be done.8 Peter Carl Haskell , Bishop Grafton and the Orthodox Church 1900 -1905 (Univ. of Minnesota., 1970); ChadHatfield, Nashotah House, Bishop Grafton, and Saint Tikhon of Moscow (Nashotah House, November 7, 1992);Ernest C. Miller, Bishop Grafton of Fond Du Lac and the Orthodox Church, Sobornost (incorporating Eastern
http://archive.episcopalchurch.org/documents/ecumenicalhandbook2007.pdfhttp://archive.episcopalchurch.org/documents/ecumenicalhandbook2007.pdfhttp://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/index.htmlhttp://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/index.htmlhttp://archive.episcopalchurch.org/documents/ecumenicalhandbook2007.pdf


4/29

are considered a small chapter of the larger bilateral conversation between two

traditions centered in the Old World, or perhaps an even smaller chapter in the broader

story of ecumenical history. 9

This oversight is not particularly surprising. The American relationship between

Anglicans and Orthodox has failed to generate much by way of a lasting, tangible effect.

It has not produced the intercommunion hoped-for by some of its architects; indeed, it

has only served to accentuate how difficult and distant a goal this is by any human

measure. Further, unlike its English counterpart, it has not found expression in lasting

societies or significant literary output. Its key dividend has been warm relations; many

of which, regrettably, have cooled over the past generation or so due to disagreement

on various issues and neglect of relational investment.

Nevertheless, at the heart of the Anglican-Orthodox relationship in America is

something unique. At the heart of American Anglican-Orthodox relationships is a

Catholic ecumenism rooted in the practical needs and circumstances of a melting -pot

culture. It is at once idealistic and realistic; a combination of the utopian optimism and

frontier pragmatism that characteristically define the American spirit. While it

generally echoes the more academic concerns of the official dialogue happening a world

Churches Review) 4, no. 1 (1982): 38-48; Ernest C. Miller, Toward a Fuller Vision: Orthodoxy and AnglicanExperience (Morehouse Barlow, 1984), chap. 6; Peter Carl Haskell, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Grafton : anEarly Chapter in Anglo- Orthodox Relations in the New World, St Vladimirs Seminary Quarterly 12, no. 1 (1968): 2-16.9 In the canonical three volume History of the Ecumenical Movement , Anglican-Orthodox relationships receiveabout two dozen pages of treatment, and American Anglican-Orthodox relations about a single page.


5/29

away between the Mother Churches of the traditions and cannot properly be

understood outside of that context it is nevertheless its own entity, often characterized

by quick decisions, slap-dash conversations, frequent frustrations and various attempts

at gritty compromise in the face of practical challenges.

Even in the last generation, as official relationships have been at a low ebb,

Anglicans and Orthodox in America have continued to discover and converse with one

another on a grassroots level. We have for one another what might be called an

irresolvable affinity. Despite manifold and even widening differences in tradition,

outlook, piety, culture, mission and theology of the churches, many Christians within

the two traditions continue to find a peculiar resonance with one another that they do

not always find with Christians of other traditions. So long as that intuited sense of

commonality exists, there is a place and a purpose a broader study of the relationship

between our traditions, and there is a place and a purpose for supporting it and moving

it forward.

I cannot hope to provide a comprehensive history of the American experience of

the Anglican-Orthodox encounter in this paper. Indeed, it is not yet possible to produce

such a history: most of the sources remain unmined, and perhaps even unidentified.

Over the course of a few vignettes, however, I do hope to give a preliminary sense of

the spirit of those relationships as it has manifested itself in these past 150 years. It is

my hope that revealing this spirit will excite that spirit in those who have been long


6/29

time participants in this conversation, and impart it to those who are just arriving to the

table.

In this country, our two traditions can often seem small and insignificant before

the seemingly unstoppable onslaught of secular, post-Christian culture on the one hand,

and extreme alternative visions for American Christianity on the other. 10 However, as I

hope an encapsulation of this spirit will demonstrate, there are also reasons for

optimism and enthusiasm in cultivating this relationship into which our Lord has

brought us.

It is difficult and risky; it is ambiguous and frightening to step out of the

assurances of our own Tradition and our own understanding of the Faith as we have

received it to come in contact with another, even one that has much in common with

our own. This is particularly true for theologians and ecclesiastics who have a

responsibility to speak out of and speak for their Tradition. Yet inevitably, such

encounters are also abundantly fruitful. Our conversations challenge us to enrich and

clarify our own positions, and perhaps even change them. But as we enter into

relationship, we do not set out to change one another, or even to change ourselves. We

reach out with the naked neighborly affection with which Christ commanded us to love

10 This point has been stressed at each point in the recent chapter of the relations forged between the OCA and theACNA. See Metropolitan Jonah and Archbishop Robert Duncan, The Future Of Anglican And Orthodox Relations(presented at the In The Footsteps of Tikhon And Grafton, Nashotah House, October 11, 2009),http://ancientfaith.com/specials/in_the_footsteps_of_tikhon_and_grafton/the_future_of_anglican_and_orthodox

_relations#transcript; Metropolitan Jonah, Address to the ACNA Provincial Assembly (presented at the ACNAProvincial Assembly, Bedford, TX, June 26, 2009), http://www.anglican.tv/content/metropolitan-jonah.


7/29

one another. In the process, it is our hope and our prayer is to be more deeply

converted to Christ, to love him more deeply and to love one another more deeply as

the result. When, by the grace of God, through the power of the Cross, the healing of

ancient wounds and the closing of seemingly irreconcilable divisions begins, an

immense spiritual power will be released into the world. As Ingram Irvine once

commented , A united church can do more than a million missionaries of a divided one

to bear witness to the fact that the Eternal Father sent His Only Begotten Son to redeem

the world. 11 Let us then, by our words and actions, lift up to God our great Amen! to

our Lords high -priestly prayer that we all may be one.

Catholic Ecumenism

I have noted that the American Anglican-Orthodox encounter is a species of

Catholic ecumenism. This immediately constitutes something of a paradox. The

term Catholic speaks of wholeness, completeness, universality; a person who claims

to be a Catholic Christian if they are using the term thoughtfully, rather than in a

blind denominational manner claims to hold to the Fullness of the Faith once

delivered. The term ecumenical, meanwhile, speaks of creating a whole out of

bringing together diverse parts, or seeing the whole that exists behind or within a

diversity. Naturally, then, there is a tension inherent to the Catholic ecumenical

encounter. An ecumenical encounter diminishes the Catholic claims of the respective

11 Ingram N. W. Irvine, An earnest plea for church unity: based on the teaching of the church of the seven general councils, and especially addressed to the laity (English Dept., St. Nicholas Cathedral, 1906), 6.


8/29

parties by positing that the wholeness to which a particular perspective claims to testify

is in fact only part of a larger whole. Conversely, if one party continues to make

dogged Catholic claims, it diminishes the ecumenicity of the encounter by denying the

integrity of other party as a legitimate differentiated whole.

This tension is heightened in Anglican-Orthodox relationships as Anglicans and

Orthodox evaluate these terms in an opposite manner. For Anglicans, the emphasis

stands on ecumenism. Anglicanism is an intrinsica lly ecumenical tradition. Even in

its most aggressively Catholic form, Anglicanism does not claim to be the Church, but

only a branch or a part of the Church. And beyond this, Anglicanism tolerates a

bewildering diversity of opinions and perspectives within its ranks. Indeed, in

ecumenical efforts, Anglicanism generally seeks to extend this diversity by positing a

minimal Catholicism that consists of little more than the Nicene Creed and the three-

fold order as a rally point for mere Christianity . 12 There is a place for the Catholic

within Anglicanism, we might say, but only so far as it is subordinate to a deeper

ecumenical vision.

This is the particular charism of Anglicanism, and we see it reflected in popular

terms used to describe the Anglican way such as comprehensiveor via media. It is also the

particular cross of Anglicanism, manifest in such profound challenges as a

comprehensiveness so broad it decomposes into incoherence, or a via media that tries to

12 See the Chicago -Lambeth Quadrilateral, BCP79,


9/29


10/29

Orthodoxy, we might say, but only insofar as it is subordinate to the Catholic vision of

the Orthodox faith.

Such, then, is the charism of Orthodoxy: a profoundly Catholic spirit expressed

in a practice, piety, and spirituality with vibrant, ancient roots and exquisite expression.

We see it manifest in popular Orthodox taglines like the Faith of the Fathers and the

Ancient Councils , or the Fullness of the Faith. It is also reflected in the characteristic

Orthodox difficulties; the seeming sclerosis of the Orthodox Church, its slowness or

even inability to adapt to the contemporary needs and situations. And of course, most

directly, it is seen in the outright acrimony that exists within certain parties of the

Orthodox Church towards any kind of ecumenical engagement. 14

To sum this up in another way: Anglicans, in emphasizing the ecumenical

dimension of Catholic ecumenism, start with the diversity of the Church and try to

work their way to its unity in Christ. The Orthodox, in emphasizing the Catholic

dimension, start with the unity of the Church, and then try to work through

understanding the divisions. These are two legitimate ecclesiological impulses with

plenty of justification in Scripture, Tradition, and experience. Unfortunately, in

14 See, for instance, Alexander Kalomiros, Against false union: humble thoughts of an Orthodox Christianconcerning the attempts for union of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church with the so-called churches of theWest (Published by St. Nectarios Press, 1990); Seraphim Rose, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future (St.Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1997).


11/29

practice, they tend to trip over each other, and yield misunderstanding and even

hostility. 15

The essential challenge in Anglican-Orthodox relationships, then, is to maintain a

balance in the conversation that essentially respects the Catholic claims of the Orthodox,

and consistently and effectively communicates that respect to the Orthodox. It is not

necessary to protect the ecumenical interests of the Anglicans: if we Anglicans have a

relationship with the Orthodox, that is what we wanted; that is ecumenism enough. We

dont want to change Orthodoxy so that it becomes understandable and palpable to us:

we want to be in relationship with Orthodoxy as it really is , and we trust that in the

dynamic process of relating in the name of Jesus, turning consistently to the Cross and

calling consistently for the renewal of the Holy Spirit, the way to deeper fellowship and

ultimate reintegration will become clear.

In the Old World, this is somewhat easier. Anglican and Orthodox bishops,

theologians and ecclesiastics have the benefit of meeting one another on grounds where

they represent full-scale national churches. Such international ecumenism

accommodates the Catholicity of the Orthodox mindset relatively well. Despite

differences in doctrine and discipline, the Anglican Church can be functionally

understood as the English Catholic Church, in much the same way as the Orthodox

Church of Greece is the Greek Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church of Russia is the

15 For one treatment of this problem, see Anna Marie Aagaard and Peter Bouteneff, Beyond the East-West divide:the World Council of Churches and the Orthodox problem (WCC Publications, 2001).


12/29

Russian Catholic Church. That distance gives the Orthodox a little more safety; it

makes the questions a little more abstract.

In America, however, our relations are more volatile. The fact that we have

complete jurisdictional interpenetration in our national setting gives a weight to

ecumenical impulses, rather than Catholic ones. Accordingly, the Orthodox feel a little

more threatened, a little more beholden to protect and preserve the Tradition rather

than having the freedom to adapt or innovate.

This point was driven home to me when reading a report of the 1969 meeting of

the American Anglican-Orthodox Theological Consultation. 16 The 1966 Pan-Orthodox

Theological Conference in Belgrade had recently made extraordinary progress in the

relationships between the two Traditions, compiling a list of all the agreements already

reached and what was yet to be discussed. 17 Yet in this context, some of the Orthodox

ecclesiastics apparently expressed the sentiment that even if an international synod

were to establish intercommunion, it would not change the teaching or practice in their

jurisdiction. These distant bishops, the American Orthodox reasoned, do not know the

on-the-ground reality of Anglican-Orthodox relations in America, which, by their

apparent estimation, was significantly behind where the International Conference

implied.

16 William S. Schneirla, An glican- Orthodox consultation in New York, St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 13, no. 4(1969): 227-232.17 Athenagoras (Metropolitan of Thyateira and Great Britain), Introduction to the theological dialogue of Anglicansand Orthodox (Athens, 1967).


13/29

If the American conversation is going to thrive, we need to ensure that we

supply by our own discipline and self-restraint what is not provided for us by our

situation. We need to be aware of Orthodox reservations about ecumenism, and

accordingly sensitive. A tremendous amount can be done to this end simply by

resisting the temptation to judge or fault Orthodoxy for its non-ecumenical spirit, and

instead seek to enter and to understand the theological ethos of the Orthodox Mind.

We need to learn to be gentle and deferent with a Tradition that opens its beauty, not to

those who demand it of her, but to those who are patient and silent, willing to listen

and pray and study.

Irresolvable Affinity

I have claimed that, in spite of everything, Anglicanism and Orthodoxy have an

irresolvable affinity for one another. This phrase deserves a little unpacking and

justification. The Orthodox have long recognized that Anglicans are not like the Roman

Catholics, who have generally wanted to subordinate and absorb them, nor like the

Protestants, who have generally wanted to introduce them to true (viz., Reformed)

Christianity. The Anglicans, meanwhile, have recognized in Orthodoxy an ancient

precedent for the non-papal Catholicism it has tried to realize since the time of the

English Reformation. But even when these superficial expediencies cool down, we still

find ourselves drawn to one another. It seems that something in the character of our

traditions keeps bringing us into contact and conversation.


14/29

At the same time, however, there are a number of differences in perspective,

tradition, culture and history that create certain natural limitations to how close our

relationships can become. We can be friendly with one another, participate in all kinds

of gestures of mutual good will, and, in the spirit of our desire to see all things

recapitulated under their head in Christ Jesus, we can hope for more. But it has never

really been conceivable that we can go far beyond friendly intercourse.

Intercommunion, the sometime vaunted goal of our relationship, has actually proven

impossible: it simply does not fit into the Orthodox ecclesiological framework. 18 The

union of the two churches is totally out of the question, barring some widespread,

fundamental changes in the doctrine and discipline of one or both traditions. The

Cypress Agreed Statement suggested we strive for mutual reception of one another s

tradition, 19 and, while this is a positive and provocative phrase, it is perhaps a bit

vague, and a little wanting in terms of what we ultimately seek and pray for, which is

the full unity of the Church.

What we are left with in the present moment is an irresolvable affinity for one

another. Mysterious forces draw us together, and mysterious forces keep us apart. We

have to accept this paradox with a bit of anguish. As the Dublin Agreed Statement

observed, we both eagerly yearn for the full unity of the Church, and strain to see it just

18 DAS, 25.19 CAS, IX.29.


15/29

over the horizon: but at the same time, in other ways, we are just getting to know one

another. 20

On an individual level, a certain amount of resolution to this tension can be

gained through conversion. This has been a frequent and attractive option for more

Catholicly-minded Anglicans, and more Americanly-minded Orthodox. Conversion

can be an uncomfortable and somewhat controversial reality, but at some point it needs

to be interpreted as part of the history of our engagement and a part of our dialogical

process. Such individual conversions, however, and even mass conversions, do little to

the resolve the larger tension: it merely changes the side of the table certain people are

sitting on. The essential puzzle is that our ecclesial cultures are inclined toward each

other, but cannot be effectively integrated into one another. Even as people may float

from one to the other, as a whole we do not seem to be moving towards consensus.

I would suggest that this irresolvable affinity is rooted in one particular

common feature of our churches. Both Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are deeply

Traditional expressions of the Christian Faith: that is, we both have a strong

consciousness of being rooted in an organic tradition that stems all the way back to the

Apostles. Neither Anglicanism nor Orthodoxy has been so dominated by any one

particular figure or any one particular movement as to take its name or the bulk of its

theology from that figure. Both Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are ultimately more

20 DAS, Preface.


16/29

identified by their culture than their creed or confession although creeds and

confessions are a part of both of our religious cultures. We can affirm together that

tradition is not a principle which strives to restore the past: it is not only the memory

of words, but the constant abiding of the Spirit. It is a charismatic, not a historical,

principle. 21

But while Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are both traditional ways of being

Christian, there are significant practical differences in how Anglicans and Orthodox

understand and approach their traditions. 22 For Anglicans, tradition is understood from

a theological vantage point as a source of authority through which Scripture is

interpreted in a particular cultural context. Anglicans might speak of a hierarchy of

truths wherewith deeper truths might correct or modify less essential ones. 23 Anglican

doctrine, it is often proposed, sits on Hookers three -legged stool, which has

Scripture, Reason, and Tradition as its legs. 24

Ultimately, this is how Anglicans can engage in certain significant departures

from ancient practice, such as the ordination of women, without in their own mind, at

least compromising their integrity as a Catholic tradition. Within the Anglican

Tradition, the dynamic process whereby Scripture and theology interprets and

responds to culture can produce positions that override even the most ancient and

21 CAS IX.1822 See, for instance, DAS 47, 91-9223 DAS 14, 105.24 Recognizing, of course, that this is a somewhat vague and problematic summary of Hooker, it is a mantra that isregularly invoked in contemporary Anglican circles.


17/29

strongly held beliefs and practices. Tradition, of course, has to be accounted for in this

process particularly given that a sufficient plurality of Anglicans has to be convinced

that the innovation is a legitimate development in order to activate the mechanisms that

will adopt the change. But tradition does not hold any final authority for Anglicanism,

and cannot be invoked as though it does.

For the Orthodox, however, such an approach to tradition is nearly

incomprehensible. For the Orthodox, tradition is more like the DNA of the Church. It

is a living reality constitutive of the Church, passed down organically and adapting

naturally over great lengths of time through a necessarily mysterious process. The

notion of arbitrarily changing the tradition based on any set of principles and any kind

of due process is basically unthinkable in the Orthodox Mind. Change happens,

certainly, but in an evolutionary manner, and just as we cannot consciously evolve

ourselves biologically, we cannot deliberately evolve the tradition. The Orthodox

might regard the Anglican approach to tradition, then, as almost a kind of ecclesiastical

genetic engineering!

In an Orthodox contribution to the Episcopal Churchs triennial ecumenical

study of 1976-79, Stanley Harakas suggested that the ordination of women had ended

the special relationship between Anglicans and Orthodox by showing Anglicanism to

be, not a Catholic tradition, but simply another strain of liberal Protestantism. 25 This is a

25 Harakas, The Orthodox Vision of Visible Unity, 178ff.


18/29

little overly pessimistic. Certainly, such innovations create new barriers and suspicions

in our ecumenical relationships, and we are still trying to rebuild our relationships from

the blows theyve received since the 1976 decision by the Episcopal Church to admit

women to presbyteral and episcopal orders. But in a deeper way, such innovations are

really just the visible manifestation of the fact that Anglicanism thinks about and

interprets tradition differently. The fact that such major visible discrepancies exist can

in fact increase the transparency of our relationship. The difference in our approaches

to tradition is so subtle that it may not have been recognized without such crises to

bring it into focus.

Of course, generally speaking, the Orthodox understanding of tradition stands

on more solid ground, both epistemologically, and as the genuinely Catholic method

consistent with the practice of the Ancient Church. 26 Once we have begun to use

constructed theological frameworks to evaluate and change our tradition in

conversation with culture: how do we determine what goes too far? At what point have

we completely lost touch with the Ancient Church, and come to follow our own

recently devised schemes? How do we maintain coherence and consistency as our

ecclesiastical organs open themselves to being manipulated and hijacked by various

fashionable agendas? Ultimately, it is important to have conservative leadership in

theology for the same reason it is important to have conservative leadership in

26 See William Abraham, Canon and criterion in Christian theology : from the fathers to feminism (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2002).


19/29

grammar: change the rules of the word games too often, and the capacity to

communicate is hindered. If that happens, the changes introduced as enhancements

in fact have only undermined and destroyed the very processes of communication they

were intended to enhance.

If we take the Orthodox seriously, their input has the capacity to ground

Anglican theology and prevent it from dissolving into complete chaos. When the

Orthodox speak to us, it is an opportunity to hear a voice speaking from the heart of the

Christian Tradition that does not come from within polarized, fractured, embittered

political spectrum of American Anglicanism. Perhaps this is why the Anglican Church

tends to look East for theological stability in times of crisis. We American Anglicans

would do well to consider the teaching of the Orthodox Church as at least a counterpoint

to the constant stream of liberal ideas flowing in from secular culture.

But the benefit also flows the other way. The Orthodox can learn from the

Anglican experience without having to conduct the same experiments. Flawed as our

paradigm may be, we have discovered a thing or two in our historical process; and

perhaps some of our dangerous and ill-conceived innovations will one day prove to be

of God and incorporated into the broader life and Tradition of the Church. Womens

ordination is too new and too sensitive a development to comment on, except to say

that, so far as the Orthodox are concerned, Anglicans are still quite far from making

their case. A clearer example is the Catholic missionary social conscience developed in


20/29

the Oxford Movement. Operating out of the same Anglican instincts of reconstructive

traditionalism, the Oxford Movement produced a flourishing of models for Catholic

social engagement that continue to have extraordinary relevance in engaging the

contemporary world. 27

Frontier Pragmatism

I have suggested that the attitudes behind the American Anglican-Orthodox

conversation are a combination of idealism and frontier realism. We have seen some

of the ideals driving our relationships reflected in the previous vignettes: let us turn

now to some of the practical concerns that have governed the relationship.

To paint with a very broad brush, we might say that the assistance lent to

Orthodox from American Anglicans has been chiefly of the practical, logistical, and

financial sort, where the assistance given to the Anglicans from the Orthodox has been

chiefly spiritual. In the early years, Anglicans provided the Orthodox with spaces to

meet, worked to ensure that isolated Orthodox were connected with an appropriate

bishop and provided with the Sacraments of their Church, and generally promoted a

policy of serving Orthodox Christians as Christian brothers and sisters without trying to

assimilate them as Episcopalians. In later years, they provided financial assistance for

the foundation of the Orthodox theological school of St. Sergius in Paris, and for over a

decade, produced a directory of Orthodox parishes and clergy in America. In return,

27 See, for instance, George H. Tavard, The Quest For Catholicity - A Study In Anglicanism (The Catholic Book Club,1963).


21/29

Anglicans have held out in hope for intercommunion, and often appealed particularly

to the frontier situations as a grounds for it. It did happen, on occasion, on the

grassroots level, as a dispensation of oikonomia, but so far as official policy was

concerned, this was never achieved.

The Orthodox, meanwhile, have made tremendous spiritual contributions to

American Anglicanism. It is somewhat more difficult to measure these contributions,

but certainly, over the past century, general interest among American Anglicans in the

East has moved from fascination to a part of the basic fabric of life in our churches.

Eastern icons can be found in most Episcopal churches. An increasing amount of

Eastern influence is found in each of our prayer book revisions. Several books on the

Jesus Prayer have been written by Episcopa l authors. Schmemanns contribution to our

liturgical understanding has been enormous, and in many respects, it is just beginning.

I think that this model of practical aid/spiritual aid is an excellent paradigm to

work out of as we frame our ongoing cooperation. Anglicans can maintain this praxis

by supporting Orthodox institutions, and missions; keeping generally abreast of

developments in the Orthodox world and keeping them in the Anglican conversation.

If we as Anglicans see and relate with Orthodoxy as a whole, it helps American

Orthodoxy to see and relate to itself as a whole.

The Orthodox, meanwhile, can contribute to Anglican life, mostly by continuing

to be open to us and continuing to reach out to us, despite our problems. The things


22/29

that we can glean from an independent reading of Orthodox thought and practice are

valuable, but a living word is much more valuable; a living conversation with

Orthodoxy that we recognize as an authentic Christian voice with deep roots in the

Great Tradition is far less subject to manipulation or misinterpretation. For this reason

alone it is desirable for Orthodoxy to maintain friendly relationships with Anglicans,

and even rebuild relationships with the Episcopal Church. Anglicans will continue to

discover and encounter elements of Orthodox Christianity one way or the other. It is

far preferable that when they do, it be interpreted through relationship, rather than

through assumptions.

So far as we can generate agreement and good working relationships, further

cooperation should be established in the basic machinations of ecumenism. While the

Orthodox Church has a compelling philosophical and theological vision for the unity of

the Church, it seems that, in practice, they lack the ecclesiastical habits and institutional

organs to effectively actualize that unity. Historically speaking, the unity of the Eastern

Church(es) seems to have been more directly guaranteed by the unity of the empire or

the unity of the ethnos , neither of which are available options in the American context.

If the Orthodox theology of the unity of the Church is the right foundation to build on,

there is still much work to be done constructing a viable ecumenical framework upon it.

We Anglicans have some good experience with such ecumenical construction. It seems

like we have been building on sand theologically speaking, but the experience itself


23/29

represents a series of ecumenical impulses and intuitions that could prove useful in

another project.

Where To From Here?

We have explored the spirit of Anglican-Orthodox relationships in America as a

species of Catholic ecumenism rooted in the irresolvable affinity our traditions have for

one another and expressed in mutual actions of practical and spiritual service. Is there a

way to move forward? Is there a way to push these relationships deeper? There is a lot

of hope surrounding these questions right now, particularly given the warm

relationships freshly constituted between the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) and

the new province of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

Insofar as the underlying tensions in Anglican-Orthodox relationships have not

been addressed, however, it seems that the OCA/ACNA dialogue will be prone to get

stuck in exactly the same places where the larger relationship has gotten stuck. This

does not mean it is a worthless exercise those relationships have value beyond their

official function. Unfortunately, the amount of progress that can be made through such

organs of dialogue will be limited.

Of far more interest is the fact that many Anglicans independently adopt an

Orthodox attitude toward their own faith and tradition. In spite of everything, there is

still an Orthodox way to be Anglican, and there are many Anglicans across many

jurisdictions that seek and pursue this path. It seems to me that the most realistic hope


24/29

would be that this stream of Anglicanism could be organized, defined and

strengthened, and ultimately recognized, received and reintegrated into the Orthodox

Church, without losing its roots in or its ties to the Anglican Tradition. I dont know

how this would work or even if it would work but due to the irreducible internal

plurality of Anglicanism, this seems like the most promising large-scale solution in the

foreseeable future. From there, perhaps new possibilities for larger movements of

reunion and reintegration would become clear.

If even this may seem like something of an overly ambitious hope, it is in this

respect very well within the spirit of our relationship. TJ Lacey, an Episcopal priest in

New York in the early 20 th-century who was very involved in the short-lived American

chapter of the Anglican and Eastern Churches Union, gave that hope a voice when he

concluded his pamphlet on the Eastern Churches with the following rhapsodic

reflection:

For years I have watched the settlement of the Orthodox Church in America. Beginning as acloud the size of a mans hand this communion has taken on strength. I have come uponcongregations in the most unexpected places, representing some of the most picturesque races ofthe world. They will be welded with us in this melting pot of the nations and American characterwill be strengthened with these new factors. If I interpret aright the movements of divineProvidence the coming of these people, bring their ancient faith and customs, at this very timewhen Christian unity is before mens minds, is the working out of Gods own purpose and herein this new land the problem of unity will be solved and the influences will sweep back to the

ancient centres of faith until East and West move forward one great united body, fair as themoon, clear as the sun, terrible as an army with banners, and the earth shall be full of theknowledge of the Lord as waters cover the sea. 28

28 Thomas James Lacey, A study of the Eastern Orthodox Church (E. S. Gorham, 1912), 54.


25/29

Perhaps, changing only a few words and a few circumstances, those same hopes

resonate in our own hearts. Likewise, Nicholas Zernov, the eminent Russian Orthodox

ecumenist who for many years served as the general secretary of the Fellowship of St.

Alban and St. Sergius, recognized the extraordinary potential of the American

contribution to the unity of the Church. North America pro vides a particularly

favorable ground for the termination of the Eastern and Western discord, 29 he wrote.

As he goes on later,

The American idea of democracy uniting all races, traditions and creeds in a complex yetharmonious whole has an affinity with the vision of a reintegrated Church. The spontaneity andvariety of expression, which is a cherished feature of their way of life, already foreshadows thatunity in freedom which is the very basis of the true ecumenicity of the Church. The work ofreconciliation should therefore have the strongest possible appeal to American Christians as thefulfillment of those noble aspirations on which their great country was founded. 30

Given the two observations prominent in Zeronvs theory of reintegration the

potential contribution of Anglicans and the potential contribution of Americans it

would stand to reason that American Anglicans could have a particularly important

role as this conversation unfolds. Let us hope that an American Anglican body will

live into such a vocation.

The act of Church union must be a creative act, the Episcopalian Russophile

Paul Anderson wrote, drawing upon the bountiful power of the spirit of Him who is

the source of all creation. Orthodox and Anglicans have thus worked to fit their efforts

29 Nicolas Zernov, Orthodox encounter: the Christian East and the ecumenical movement (J. Clarke, 1961), 166.30 Ibid., 168.


26/29

at intercommunion into the stream of Gods creative power, knowing that in the end it

will come because of His will. 31

We have a lot of work to do, certainly, both in building and rebuilding

relationships, if any semblance of unity between us is ever to be revealed. Yet we can

proceed with confidence, knowing that our Lord not only calls us into unity and creates

that unity, but gives us that unity in giving us himself.

31 Paul Anderson, Scaife, Lauriston L, Bp, St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 14, no. 4 (1970): 231.


27/29

Bibliography

Aagaard, Anna Marie, and Peter Bouteneff. Beyond the East-West Divide: The World Council of Churches and the Orthodox Problem . WCC Publications, 2001.

Abraham, William. Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology : from the Fathers to Feminism .

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.Anderson, Paul. No East or West . YMCA-Press, 1985.---------------- . Scaife, Lauriston L, Bp. St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 14, no. 4 (1970):

229-231.Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission. Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin

Agreed Statement 1984 . SPCK, 1984.Avis, Paul. Ecumenical Theology and the Elusiveness of Doctrine . London: SPCK, 1986.Billerbeck, Franklin. Anglican-Orthodox Pilgrimage . Conciliar Press, 1993.Briggs, John, and Ruth Rouse. A History of the Ecumenical Movement: 1968-2000 . World

Council of Churches, 2004.Britain), Athenagoras (Metropolitan of Thyateira and Great. Introduction to the Theological

Dialogue of Anglicans and Orthodox . Athens, 1967.Burgess, Thomas, Charles Kendall Gilbert, Charles Thorley Bridgeman, and Episcopal Church.

Dept. of Missions and Church Extension. Foreigners or Friends, a Handbook: TheChurchmans Approach to the Foreign -born and Their Children . Department of missionsand church extension, 1921.

Consultation, Conseil oecumnique des Eglises. Groupe orthodoxe de travail. The New ValamoConsultation: The Ecumenical Nature of the Orthodox Witness : New Valamo, Finland,September 24- 30, 1977 : [publ. by the] World Council of Churches, Orthodox Task Force . World Council of Churches Orthodox Task Force, 1977.

Doll, Peter. Anglicanism and Orthodoxy 300 Years After the Greek College in Oxford .Oxford; Bern: Peter Lang, 2006.

Emhardt, William Chauncey, Thomas Burgess, and Robert Frederick Lau. The Eastern Churchin the Western World . AMS Press, 1928.

Episcopal Church. Joint Commission on Ecumenical Relations. Council on Relations with theEastern Churches. Handbook of American Orthodoxy . Forward Movement Publications,1972.

Fey, Harold Edward. A History of the Ecumenical Movement: The Ecumenical Advance, 1948-1968 . World Council of Churches, 1987.

Fitzgerald, Thomas E. The Orthodox Church . Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998.Geffert, Bryn. Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans: Diplomacy, Theology, and the Politics of

Interwar Ecumenism . University of Notre Dame Press, 2009.Harakas, Stanley. The Orthodox Vision of Visible Unity. In A Communion of Communions:

One Eucharistic Fellowship : the Detroit Report and Papers of the Triennial EcumenicalStudy of the Episcopal Church, 1976-1979 , edited by John Robert Wright. Seabury Press,1979.

Haskell, Peter Carl. Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Grafton : an Early Chapter in Anglo -Orthodox Relations in the New World. St Vladimi rs Seminary Quarterly 12, no. 1(1968): 2-16.

. Bishop Grafton and the Orthodox Church 1900 -1905. Univ. of Minnesota., 1970.


28/29

Hatfield, Chad. Nashotah House, Bishop Grafton, and Saint Tikhon of Moscow, NashotahHouse, November 7, 1992.

International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue. The Church of theTriune God: The Cypress Statement . London: Anglican Communion Office, 2006.

Irvine, Ingram N W 1850, George F Seymour, and Randall Cooke 1842 Hall. A Letter on the

Anglican Churchs Claims . Nabu Press, 2011.Irvine, Ingram N. W. An Earnest Plea for Church Unity: Based on the Teaching of the Church of the Seven General Councils, and Especially Addressed to the Laity . English Dept., St.

Nicholas Cathedral, 1906. Istavridis, V.T. Orthodoxy and Anglicanism . London: SPCK, 1966.Kalomiros, Alexander. Against False Union: Humble Thoughts of an Orthodox Christian

Concerning the Attempts for Union of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Churchwith the So-called Churches of the West . Published by St. Nectarios Press, 1990.

Lacey, Thomas James. A Study of the Eastern Orthodox Church . E. S. Gorham, 1912.Maguire, Kenneth. Comments on Anglican -Orthodox Relations. St Vladimirs Theological

Quarterly 15, no. 4 (1971): 178-190.

Manning, William Thomas. The Call to Unity: The Bedell Lectures for 1919 Delivered at Kenyon College, May 24th and 25th, 1920 . The Macmillan company, 1920.Metropolitan Jonah. Address to the ACNA Provincial Assembly presented at the ACNA

Provincial Assembly, Bedford, TX, June 26, 2009.http://www.anglican.tv/content/metropolitan-jonah.

Metropolitan Jonah, and Archbishop Robert Duncan. The Future Of Anglican And OrthodoxRelations presented at the In The Footsteps of Tikhon And Grafton, Nashotah House,October 11, 2009.http://ancientfaith.com/specials/in_the_footsteps_of_tikhon_and_grafton/the_future_of_anglican_and_orthodox_relations#transcript.

Miller, Ernest C. Bishop Grafton of Fond Du Lac and the Orthodox Church. Sobornost (incorporating Eastern Churches Review) 4, no. 1 (1982): 38-48.

. Toward a Fuller Vision: Orthodoxy and Anglican Experience . Morehouse Barlow,1984.

Norwood, Percy Varney. Reunion with the Eastern Churches. Anglican Theological Review 23, no. 1 (Ja 1941): 47-66.

Rose, Seraphim. Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future . St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood,1997.

Rossner, John L. Orthodoxy and the Future of Western Christianity. St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 14, no. 3 (1970): 115-135.

Rouse, Ruth, and Stephen Charles Neill. A History of the Ecumenical Movement: Vol I: 1517-1948 . World Council of Churches, 2004.

Schneirla, William S. Anglican -Orthodox Consultation in New York. St VladimirsTheological Quarterly 13, no. 4 (1969): 227-232.

. Some Orthodox Reflections on the Proposed Book of Common Prayer. St VladimirsTheological Quarterly 22, no. 2 3 (1978): 115-125.

. The Latest Orthodox -Anglican Conference : Moscow, 1956. St Vladimirs SeminaryQuarterly 1, no. 3 (Jl 1957): 7-22.


29/29

Spoer, Hans Henry. An Aid for Churchmen: Episcopal and Orthodox, Toward a MutualUnderstanding, by Means of a Brief Comparison of the Rites and Ceremonies of theOrthodox Church with Those of the Episcopal (Anglican) Church . AMS Press, 1969.

Tavard, George H. The Quest For Catholicity - A Study In Anglicanism . The Catholic Book Club, 1963.

Williams, George. The Orthodox Church of the East in the Eighteenth Century: Being theCorrespondence Between the Eastern Patriarchs and the Nonjuring Bishops : with an Introduction on Various Projects of Reunion Between the Eastern Church and the Anglican Communion . Rivingtons, 1868.

Wright, J. Robert, and Edward Kasinec, eds. Russo-Greek Papers, 1863-1874 . Norman RossPub. on behalf of the Episcopal Diocese of New York, 2001.

Zernov, Nicolas. Orthodox Encounter: The Christian East and the Ecumenical Movement . J.Clarke, 1961.

. The Reintegration of the Church: a Study in Intercommunion . SCM Press, 1952.

Kidd a-o Relationships

Documents

Transcript of Kidd a-o Relationships