An Orthodox Church of America (OCA) position paper is calling for an Orthodox pull-out from the National Council Churches.
Look at page 20. http://www.oca.org/PDF/14thAAC/Orthodox%20Relations.pdf
Good to see some clear thinking going on in the OCA.
OCA calls for pull-out from the NCC
About Time
NCC is getting very, very cozy with the Palestinian Authority.
yeah!
A petulant, “take my ball and go home” attitude never solved any problem. Staying involved and trying to make a difference is the constructive approach for solving problems.
While I agree that some of the positions adopted by the NCC are inapropriately partisan and just plain goofy, others are perfectly appropriate. For example the NCC has championed environmental causes which I think is appropriate as every Christian should be interested in protecting God’s creation. By staying involved and united the Orthodox Churches can help pull the NCC back to the mainstream and way from more controversial positions.
However I suspect that some who favor an Orthodox departure from the NCC do so not because the positions of the NCC are too partisan, but actally oppose them because the NCC does not reflect the socially intolerant, imperialist, plutocratic and corporate Christianity championed by the extreme right-wing.
Amen, amen, amen!!!
Dean, I suppose you might consider the attitude of St. Nicholas as the 1st Council of Nicea petulant when he slugged Arius because of the contempt Arius showd for the Holiness of God Incarnate?
Many of the theological positions of the NCC are of the same ilk. You do not witness to the truth by compromising the truth.
Note 6 The question is who will compromise their principles Orthodoxy or NCC?
Orthodoxy and the NCC are at odds on important issues. Who will change?
If I am a teetotaler and I join a club which consists of 99 heavy drinkers, whom do you suppose is likely to change over time. If I spend a great deal of time with 99 heavy drinkers I run the risk of changing and becoming more like them. The pull of their example would be very strong. Plus others who do not know me would be likely to think I was a heavy drinker, based on my association.
Is Orthodoxy likely to change the NCC? Or is the NCC likely to change Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy holds a great deal of prestige among the non-Orthodox. NCC is using that prestiage to its advantage, not to the benefit of the Orthodox faith.
Doesn’t the Bible say “do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers?” Who will be stronger and more resistant to change, for NCC will constantly call upon the Orthodox to change their positions to be more like those of the majority of NCC members.
Why does Orthodoxy need NCC? Why not make SCOBA the means by which the Orthodox interact with the public on issues of interest to the Orthodox.
Finally….!
Dean –
Some really good work has come out of the cooperation of the Orthodox Church with the NCC. One example is the book by Emanuel Clapsis, “Orthodoxy in Conversation,” which is a collection of position papers that he wrote while representing the Orthodox Church in various NCC panels and committees. Dialog helps keep the Orthodox Church sharp. One of the reasons why Orthodox apologetics waned after the 15th Century is that the Orthodox Church ceased to talk and dispute regularly with the RC.
On the other hand, the NCC has made continued dialog extremely difficult, at least as a member communion that is. On the subjects of abortion, homosexuality, the use of force, opposition to communism (Cuba), traditional Christian doctrine such as the Trinity, the exclusive nature of the Gospel and many others – most of the churches comprising the leadership of the NCC are simply too far from Orthodoxy for us to lend our name to them. We have too little to agree on for us to be included in their organization.
That doesn’t mean that the Orthodox communion cannot work on issues such as environmental legislation with the NCC. It means that we won’t let them piggyback off our membership to convince people that most of them are something they are not – namely Christians. Many of the NCC crowd simply aren’t Christians.
That does not mean that the Falwell and Robertson crowd are. I wouldn’t advocate the Orthodox Church joining a group that included the Southern Baptists, either. On a whole host of issues, the Orthodox communion will never see eye-to-eye with them either. We may oppose abortion, euthanasia, etc., but their pre-millenial dispensationalism will forever preclude too close an association.
The Orthodox Church is extremely unique in the world. Her Theology, praxis, and her in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit put her at odds with almost everyone else on at least a host of topics. We fit neither the ‘left’ nor the ‘right,’ as narrowly defined in the U.S. spectrum. We may find a common point of agreement with this group or that one on a few issues, but we will never line up more than imperfectly. What does one call a group espousing traditional Christian interpersonal morality, that warns of the dangers of capitalism and socialism, which espouses care for the environment, which preaches incessantly about the poor, which has a low view of politicians, which calls for living a life of introspection, which has largely criticized the Bush wars, and which is opposed to euthanasia and abortion? Left? Right? Center?
It is best that we leave the NCC to its own devices, and not seek to join any other such organizations. As individuals we should be free to follow our own paths, but as a communion, we simply don’t fit any of these moulds. By adding its name to the NCC as a member, the Orthodox Church implicitly endorses even their most outrageous statements and communications. Better to not do that and to instead focus on being ourselves.
Note to Missourian on the powerlessness of SCOBA
I pulled this quote from page 12 of this same OCA position paper to let you see the lack of authority of SCOBA. It is not in any way a real synod of Bishops. IF we had Orthodox jurisdictional unity (One Orthodox Church of America) then we would have one Orthodox source to interact with the public on the issues that concern us today.
At this time, there is no permanent canonical relationshp among all the hierarchs of North America. The Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in (North) America (SCOBA) is a “free-association” body which admits to membership just those hierarchs who are entitled “primate” of an ethnic group (see SCOBA Bylaws). SCOBA has no canonical status on which to resolve jurisdictional disputes or make official statements in the name of “the” Church.
Tamara:
I should probably bow out of this one. I am reading alot about Orthodoxy but I still only have a superficial knowledge.
Given what I do know, I do wonder why Orthodox are associating so closely with NCC.
Alas, it doesn’t sound like the idea to pull out is quite firm. There still seems to be some lingering idea, like a hangover, that there is something to be gained (for whom? How?) by dialog with the likes of the Episcopal church. Don’t stay in the WCC or NCC, *and* don’t try to teach a pig to sing!
Note to 3.
Why should Christians mix up with Gaia-Workshipping weirdos?
Dean, I am left wondering if you bothered to read the OCA’s document before you posted your comments in Note 3. If you did you would have read the following:
“These institutions [the World Council of Churches, the Faith and Order Conferences, the World Mission Conferences, and the various national Councils of Churches] have provided the necessary – and so far the only – infrastructure for sustained contact, discussion and study among Christians, as well as common work. They have provided critical space for Orthodox to gather and come to consensus on numerous issues. They have taken most churches from positions of almost complete mutual ignorance to regular and informed contact, and they have fostered the development of numerous personal relationships of trust and respect.”
This doesn’t read like the “petulant, ‘take my ball and go home’ attitude” that you describe. There is, however, a realistic view of these organizations, in the OCA’s statement, that you don’t even come close to addressing:
“There has always been a tendency for Protestant ecclesiologies of denominationalism and ecclesial relativism to dominate the ethos, procedures, and languages of the councils. The councils have often been tempted to see themselves as somehow ?super churches,? above and beyond their members. Similarly, the very politically-oriented theologies of many Protestant denominations have often threatened to derail the agenda of the councils away from dialogue and unity, and towards political advocacy and activism. Concerns for practical cooperation in the short term have sometimes diverted attention from long-term rapprochement, and public positions have been taken that are inappropriate to the nature of such councils.”
The statement continues:
“…for the most part the Orthodox Church in America participates in ecumenical organizations [the NCC and WCC] which represent a minority of Christians. Furthermore, the ecumenical organizations in which we participate, in their theological and social views, are oriented towards policies which are not in harmony with Orthodox views. Thus our participation and the participation of other Orthodox Churches lend credibility and legitimacy to ecumenical organizations which, in the public perception, are espousing beliefs often antithetical to the Orthodox convictions.”
“The most advisable course for the Orthodox Church in America would be eventually to withdraw from the NCC and the WCC. … the announcement of our withdrawal should be framed in the context of a defense of the proper and necessary ecumenical vision. Those ecumenical streams or contexts which hold theological promise – for example, the Faith and Order streams of the NCC and the WCC – should be affirmed. And ecumenical Christian relations should be sought with conservative Christian bodies.”
So all this is to be interpreted as a “petulant ‘take my ball and go home’ attitude?” That’s some display of Christian charity, Dean, to respond to the OCA’s statement with such a snide dismissal. But perhaps, beyond posting comments at this blog, you don’t feel one should have “relations” with “conservative Christian bodies.” Now who’s displaying the petulant attitude?
A tip of the hat to the OCA for finally waking up to the fact that the NCC and WCC, in their theological and social views, do not represent anything approaching a majority of the Christian world.
And in case anyone is concerned that the OCA is simply going to give their stamp of approval to conservative Christian groups that neglect to recognize the difference between the Gospel and a political agenda note the following:
“In following a policy of distancing itself from the ecumenical organizations and their liberal advocacy role, the Orthodox Church in America will need to exercise similar caution with regard to conservative Christian groups and movements. Political agendas are obviously present in conservative Christian organizations. Conservative Christians in the USA are similar to liberal Christian organizations in one specific quality ? both can be politically-driven. For Orthodox Christians, this means that our alliances need to be formed on an issue-by-issue basis. Withdrawal from groups which are liberal advocacy groups, rather than religious bodies, should not be a pretext for joining organizations which are conservative advocacy groups, rather than religious bodies.”
This seems like an eminently reasonable position to me. I applaud the OCA.
Daniel, I agree that the OCA is making a concerted effort to avoid aligning itself with any organization that is overtly and primarily political (liberal or conservative). Nevertheless, I’m not even aware of a more conservative ecumenical organization. Does one even exist? (The Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council do not count.)
In addition, what policies of the NCC rendered it a “liberal advocacy group” in the eyes of the OCA? I spent some time on the NCC site and found many laudable goals, none of which seemed overly political or even liberal. Most involved increasing parental involvement with their children, a reduction of violence in the media, an increase in the availability of pre-natal care and world hunger.
Dan – You are right. The text does not indicate a “petulant” attitude, but a more cautious desire not to offend it’s members by alligning itself with organizations that take controversial or partisan positions. I can respect that, since politics are at most, peripheral to the mission of the Church and often times serve as a distraction and irritant that promotes disharmoney and disunity.
Still, the opening text of the statement affirms the value of the NCC and one wonders whether the situation is indeed so bad that the OCA has no other choice but to withdraw, or whether the OCA is being a little too cautious. Furthermore, as I said, there is still the possibility that by staying involved and united the Orthodox churches could promote more mainstream views.
Why do you think the situation is that bad?
Note 14. Dean, are you saying the NCC is mainstream?
(answering for Dean)
The NCC may be mainstream relative to most of America, yes.
Like I said, I didn’t see anything particularly scandalous on the NCC site, and it certainly seems to promote a Christian point of view in that it works for social justice, a reduction of violence in the media and stronger families.
When you consider that large populations of this country do not even consider themselves religious, let alone Christian, I’m not sure why the NCC should be considered part of the liberal fringe.
They may be theologically left of the Southern Baptist Convention, but that doesn’t mean they’re not capable of spreading the Gospel or doing much more good than harm.
Yes, it’s possible that a few ill-advised and controversial statements may be overshadowing the majority of their more mainstream positions.
Some issues and topics require more caution and forethought. Supporting the PLO could be construed as offensive because, while as Christians we may sympathize with the plight of dispossesed and suffering Palestinians (who include some of our own co-religionists), we can never offer support to those who would spill innocent blood on the very ground where Jesus walked.
I’m afraid this move is overdue. The Orthodox presence on the NCC appears to add the blessing of Orthodoxy and some legitimacy to what is clearly “hodge podge” gathering of interests who never intended to listen to what the Orthodox faith has to say. I’m afraid this is a club the Orthodox should never have joined.
I just hope as we stand to criticize the liberal agenda of the NCC, we first stand up and criticize the liberal approach to ecclesiastical order which is the rule here in the Americas. Our efforts need to shift to fixing this matter now, not later. As the Master taught us:
“And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log from your own eye; then perhaps you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.” (NLT) MATTHEW 7:3-5
One of the NCC’s key policy makers is an Orthodox Christian.
Read, “Dr. Antonios Kireopoulos Named to Lead NCC International”
Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2003 Posted: 11:35:01AM EST
NEW YORK CITY – Dr. Antonios (Tony) Kireopoulos, an Orthodox Christian theologian currently serving as Executive Director of the U.S. Conference of Religions for Peace, will join the National Council of Churches U.S.A. (NCC) staff on May 19 as Associate General Secretary for International Affairs and Peace. His responsibilities will include helping the NCC formulate its position on issues of peace, international issues and U.S. foreign policy, especially in conflict and post-conflict situations. High on the agenda will be the Middle East, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and post-conflict reconstruction in Iraq. He will also maintain relationships with Christian Churches, councils and other religious communities worldwide.
…Dr. Kireopoulos holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree in theology from Fordham University (2003); a Master of Divinity degree from St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary (1991); a Master of International Management from the American Graduate School of International Management (1983); and a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service degree from Georgetown University (1981). Dr. Kireopoulos has more than 10 years of experience in non-profit management, including administration, board relations, budgeting, development, program direction and public relations.
Previous to leading the United States Conference of Religions for Peace, he worked as Special Assistant to the Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, where his duties included representing the Greek Orthodox Church at the United Nations and at the US State Department, and as the Assistant to the Chancellor of the Orthodox Church in America, in the area of executive communications. Among his affiliations, he is currently the President of the NGO Committee on Freedom of Religion or Belief”
http://www.christianpost.com/article/church/312/full/dr.antonios.kireopoulos.named.to.lead.ncc.international/1.htm
For the Greek Orthodox Church the NCC remains the primary vehicle for promoting relations with other Christian denominations, although the GOA is considering participation in other organizations to provide contact with a wider number of groups.
From the Report to the Clergy-Laity Congress, July 2004:
“Relations with other Christian Churches are promoted primarily through the National Council of Churches of Christ (NCCC). The director of this department serves on theExecutive Board of the NCCC, and oversees a delegation of 7 Greek Orthodox clergy and laity appointed by the Archbishop to serve for four years as delegates to the NCCC General Assembly. Twenty clergy and laity from our Archdiocese serve on the various committees of the NCCC. The immediate Past-President of the NCCC is Mrs. Elenie Huszagh, the first Greek Orthodox person to serve in this capacity. All Eastern and Oriental Orthodox delegates to the NCCC comprise the NCCC?s Orthodox Caucus. The only Orthodox employee of the NCCC is Dr. Antonios Kireopoulos, Associate General Secretary for International Affairs.
At present, the Archdiocese is engaged in a process to expand the ecumenical table to include Roman Catholics, Evangelicals and Pentecostals. A new entity called Christian Churches Together in the USA is emerging. Several Orthodox participants are engaged in this process. It is expected that this new ecumenical enterprise will be launched in 2005. 3. Cooperation with other faith groups, such as Islam and Judaism, has not been formalized in structures, but takes place through various venues, such as the World Conference of Religions for Peace, the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, the American Jewish Committee, and the New York City Council of Religious Leaders. This Office also oversees the work of volunteers serving as NGO?s at the United Nations and representing the Archdiocesan Council, which has NGO status at the United Nations.These volunteers are Mrs. Lila Prounis, Mrs. Sophia Altin, Dr. Antonios Kireopoulos, Ms. Stacy Malacos, and Mr. Paul Zamora. Submitted by, ?Bishop Dimitrios of Xanthos Director.”
http://www.clergylaity.org/reports/interorthodoxinterfaith.pdf
Note 22 and 23
Oh Dean,
If only the GOA would put the same kind of energy and talent into promoting Orthodox Jurisdicitional unity.(sigh) Just think of the voice we would have as one Orthodox Church of America!
your sister in Christ, Tamara
Note 23. The problem with using the NCC for relations with other Christian communions is that very few are actually members of the NCC. The NCC is supported primarily by the Protestant mainstreamers. It claimed to represent more than 50 million American Christians but the reality was that 64 percent of its support came from two member communions –the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church USA.
Another problem is that the NCC is bound to the ideas of the hard left. See: Church of the Latter-Day Leftists. Note their infatuation with Marxism during the last half of the last century. All the same players are in place (apart from the Orthodox of course) so there is no reason to believe anything has changed.
Note 24 Methodist Congregations vs. NCC
To state that the NCC “represents” the members of the national UMC is misleading. There are many lay members and clergy leaders inside UMC that oppose UMC’s membership in NCC. Many members are aware that NCC claims that UMC’s participation means that NCC’s agenda is approved and supported by the general UMC membership. This is simply not true. A large share of UMC members, measured both by percentage and absolute numbers do not support NCC. This is a perfect demonstration of the divergence of an encrusted and bloated national church bureaucracy going its own way regardless of the wishes of its membership base. Given the official membership of the UMC, NCC is within its rights to claim UMC’s support. The formal support given by UMC is very useful to NCC and is persuasive to those outside UMC.
Like other mainline churchs, UMC has been torn apart by gay activism and revisionist clergy. Congregations led by “liberal” clergy are shrinking and only those congregations led by “theologically conservative” clergy are maintaining membership or growing.Let me acknowledge that my use of terms to describe theological positions is very rough and probably not truly accurate, but I think I convey the idea. For updates, see Institute for Religion and Democracy site: http://www.ird-renew.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&b=278604
Consider yourselves warned.
It appears that there is now a relatively new ecumenical council with a slightly less controversial profile. Entitled “Christian Churches Together in the USA”, its participants include some members of the NCCC but also HG Bishop Serpion of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Dr. David Wagschal from the Orthodox Church (among others) in addition to members of the Roman Catholic, Episcopal and the United Method Churches.
I could not find much information on them however.
I have just scanned all the articles listed in this site’s NCC Resources page in order to discover what makes that organization so objectionable to my conservative friends.
The major criticism I found myself in agreement with is that the NCC seems to have clumsily stumbled accross the fine line that separates moral and political speech. While the church absolutely has a duty to speak out on moral issues, it unwisely strays into a minefield of potential negative consequences when it enters the partsian political arena. Speaking out on moral issues is part of the teaching function of the church. Political advocacy on the other hand often creates a distraction from Christ’s teachings and becomes a source of friction, bitterness and disharmony, among the faithful.
This is why when my conservative friends explain to me their moral views I receive their comments gratefully with an open mind and open heart. But when I hear them say that their moral views justify over-simplified single-issue voting or smears or machiavellian dirty tricks against a good man like John Kerry, I bristle with outrage. Even Pope Benedict, nee Cardinal Ratzinger, acknowleged last year that voters may consider a wide range of moral issues when evaluating a candidate for public office, not just one.
As to the content of the NCC statements, I found them a mixed bag. Their criticism of the unprovoked war of aggression in Iraq seems to me to be entirely justified. This war has been a major strategic blunder and waste of blood and treasure for the US and an unmitgated disaster for the people of Iraq. Other statements by the NCC, for example regarding Cuba or homosexuality, seemed to be naive, unbalanced and confrontational. They seemed not to have appreciated the complexity of the issues or considered the impact of their words on people with legitimate concerns leading them to different conclusions.
Reading the statements of some of the NCC leaders I had the impression that they were trying to respond to the political statements and activity of the politically organized religious right, but in doing so they emulated some of that group’s less admirable qualities. The NCC should have stayed on the high road, rather than stooped to their level.
Dean,
I think it’s difficult for some of us to see a tangible benefit from the Orthodox contributions, thusfar. Many dialogues are already opened between the Orthodox Church and various “more conservative” denominations. But in order for the Church to continue to fulfill her mission here in the Americas, many of us believe that we need to first put our ecclesiastical house in order, reducing the waste and anti-canonical embarrasment that having multiple overlapping diocese and administration which prevent us from fully ministering as one Orthodox Church of America to our communities and neighbors in the way the Master and the Holy Apostles compel us to do. Allocating resources, financial or otherwise, to continue participation in a body that is bent on serving a factionalized denominational agenda with very liberal interpretations of Christian scripture, doctrine, and ecclesiastical order is not necessarily something that better serves the Orthodox Church here in the Americas.
I think we all would agree that the Church has continually sent it’s message to the members of the NCC, and that it is possible that it can respectfully bow out of this organization in a way that does not tarnish the Orthodox Church’s connections to these other denominations. Those dialogues which have been initiated between individual denominations and the Church can continue, and the Church can get down to the business of putting its house in order to more efficiently conduct its ministry. Many of us see this as a WIN-WIN situation for the Orthodox Church and having greater importance to the Orthodox in the Americas. While I’m sure the NCC would miss the Orthodox participation, the loss of active Orthodox membership in the NCC will not threaten the NCC’s existence. There are many newly founded and growing denominations which I’m sure can get involved in that body, and with their own liberal interpretations, contribute and benefit more from that forum than the Orthodox have.
Dean, the NCC has never been on the high road. Their problem is not that they have been insensitive to conservatives; their problem is their ideas — many of which are mentioned in the articles I posted.
What are those ideas? Liberation theology for one — wrapping Marxism in the moral vocabulary of Christianity thus prostituting the Gospel. When Soviet Russia fell, Liberation Theology fell with it but we have yet to hear of any serious accounting by the NCC for their support of Marxist regimes. (One Cuban prisoner, a Christian, reported the most difficult thing to endure was the taunting by his captors that American Christians praised Castro. NCC was a chief player here.)
This tolerance of tyranny continues today as I made clear in my article Mainstream Protestants Fail in Defense of Human Rights. It’s a considerable failing, and one we see often on the hard left. (For all your disdain of Christian conservatives, if it were not for them you would never hear about Darfur or Korea.) We saw it again by the refusal of the NCC to confront Castro on political prisoners during the visit of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. (I spoke to the delegate who pleaded with them first hand.) We saw it a third time in the castigation of the US for the crimes of the Korean government against their own people.
Ideas have consequences, and some ideas are better than others. They have been consistently on the wrong side of history, and they are on the wrong side today. The NCC uses the moral authority of Orthodox Christianity to lend itself an authority it does not rightfully possess. That some Orthodox partake of this charade, knowingly or unknowingly, only serves to undermine the moral witness of Orthodox Christianity in the long term. Reading the OCA piece, it is apparent that many agree with my assessment.
Note 28. Andrew, good post. I agree that a pull-out of the Orthodox from the NCC might not threaten the NCC’s existence but it certainly will reduce NCC credibility to near nothing. The only thing standing between the charge that the NCC merely represents a declining mainstream is Orthodox participation. Remove the Orthodox from the equation and the charge sticks. (I’ll bet there is a lot of discussion on Riverside Drive today.)