"Christ, in his humble condescension, is hidden throughout all mankind"
+ Metropolitan Georges (Khodre)
"If the passing millennium was an era of religious-nationalistic hostility, could we possibly hope that the next one will be a time for nationalities to come to a respectful appreciation for each other? What an incredible witness it would be if Orthodox nationalities would assert the Gospel-based, charitable and prudent attitudes towards other members of the human race!"
+ Fr. Alexander Garklavs
Culture and ethnicity, diversity of the different Orthodox cultures can be a very positive thing, but what is often dangerous is the walled in mentality, of "them vs. us" that has created Jurisdictionalism and Orthodox "Denominationalism" in North America. Culture and Ethnicity has also been recapitulated by the Cross and Resurrection, and as such has the potential for restoration instead of the fallenness which creates the idol of nationalism.
In missiology this has a further implication as Orthodox Churches can claim multi-culturalism in parish life but impart a "spiritual nationalism" specific to the "jurisdiction." This means that misunderstanding and 'broad-stroke' labling of the 'other' as 'different' or even 'heretical' is perpetuated among the lay and diocesan clergy. Even when official documents have worked out the essential theological misunderstanding there is a continual refusal to implement this on a lay level unless a hierarchical or magisterial sign-off has been given.
Both are of course needed, hierarchical acceptance and popular implementation and desire for unity. The Church is NOT to be governed in a magesterium method like the See of Rome and neither is it to be operated as congregationalist styled popular movements, but rather like Orthodoxy has always affirmed, in a Conciliar way. Orthodoxy is Christ, Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy, it does not have two Christs and is not two seperate entities in opposition to each other.
Fr Kenneth mentions the importance of the desire for unity that "when Orthodox Christians of various traditions come together in mutual respect, encountering one another as “cooperators in charity,” the hope of eventual integral unity is strengthened." [Yossa, 214]
If one looks at the statements of the Joint Commission (i.e. http://www.orthodoxunity.org ) our Heirarchs HAVE identified that there is the "same faith," it is now the apathy of the laity that is so tragically causing this dialogue to crumble. Again from Fr Kenneth's book:
To prevent this and to stay the process of inter-Orthodox ecumenical regression, I reiterate the absolute necessity for representative hierarchs of all Eastern and Oriental canonical bodies to meet in conference with their periti and reprise a discussion of the main points. Such a meeting has never been held, although a number of hierarchs, clerical and lay theologians have been part of the process of rapprochement from the very beginning. I must also stress that such a meeting will not in all probability be convened unless the will for unity among the churches is sought again in our time, as it was in the previous era of rapprochement. Certainly, a common and external threat to the churches (e.g., as currently experienced in the Middle East) provides a particularly powerful inducement toward the establishment of the doctrinal and ecclesiological essentials which lead to unity, making it both attractive and possible. [Yossa 199]Protopresbyter George Dragas resonates with this same theme in a talk at St Mary Coptic Orthodox Parish, East Brunswick, New Jersey ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOEF_aGdf58&t=33m2s at the 33 minute mark) where he recommends that it is the imperative of the youth, the laity to make clear to heirarchs that they desire unity and together with the heirarchy of their Churches to learn and encounter the shared Orthodox legacy and essentials of the Faith.
Nationalism, Ethnocentrism and yes even the concept of "Diaspora" are potentially diabolical (ie. "The work of the devil is diabolical: literally, to “throw in two,” from dia (two) and baleo (to throw). The unity of the Church in Christ, by redemptive contrast, is symbolical: Things separated are thrown together." [David W. Fagerberg, "Theologia Prima: What Is Liturgical Theology?" 2nd Ed. (Chicago: Hillenbrand Books, 2004) 202.])
If the first barrier to unity is Antipaty and Ennui then this only becomes more problematic when nationalism and diaspora politics are introduced or perpetuated. Again to reiterate, culture and ethnic expression is NOT bad, but Orthodoxy has recapitulated culture into the culture of Christ, restored fallen culture into the the beauty of the Kingdom. Culture is perfected and delivered and brought into fulfilment by Orthodoxy, not the other way around.
Church transcends ethnicity...but Orthodoxy must guard against various eccentric and incidental elements in church life, leading to isolationism or parochialism.
+ + +
Barriers to Unity Part 2: Nationalism, Ethnocentrism and Thinking in Terms of "Diaspora"
The great patriarchal sees of the Old World, although significantly more fluid and more expansive than would have been the case in the medieval period, still bear the deep imprint of national, ethnic or regional identification. This is not to be disparaged of itself, since such identities have become an integral part of world Orthodoxy’s ethos. In fact, this can be one of the most positive aspects of Eastern Christianity.
“The Church,” as Metropolitan John of Korce notes, “does not deny ethnicity, because to deny it would be to deny the mystery of personhood and the particularity of each individual; instead the Church transcends ethnicity.” At the same time, Orthodoxy must guard against various eccentric and incidental elements in church life, leading to isolationism or parochialism.
Many Orthodox Churches are unable to take a critical stance with regard to culture, because in several cases a local Orthodox Church may be too closely identified with the original culture in which it grew up. When this identification becomes exclusively ethnocentric or nationalist, it may weaken the church in its prophetic, renewing and reshaping role with regard to society and culture in general.
Armenian Catholicos Aram has further identified sources of tension which foment difficulties currently found in general ecumenism, what he terms the “de-institutionalization of the ecumenical movement.” Of the several he cited, two are especially applicable here, namely,
1) the fears which arise from globalization are causing churches to “strongly affirm their identity” in the face of multiculturalism which is viewed as potentially dangerous and,
2) a type of insecurity created by ecumenical priorities which, “conditioned by missiological and ecclesiological self-understandings, often clash rather than intersect.”
SOURCE: Fr. Kenneth F. Yossa. "Common heritage, divided communion : the declines and advances of inter-Orthodox relations from Chalcedon to Chambesy" (New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2009) 210-211.
