The Witness of Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch. Edited by William G.Rusch. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2013.

Abstract

The Witness of Bartholomew I. Ecumenical Patriarch was published in 2013 on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of His All Holiness Bartholomew I's enthronement as Ecumenical Patriarch. The collection comprises altogether seven articles by theologians who come from different ecclesial backgrounds and whose encounters with the Patriarch are of different character. The volume is edited by William G. Rusch, adjunct professor of Lutheran studies at Yale Divinity School, whose introduction highlights the main content of the articles. It is interesting that the collection does not include any contribution from a member of the Patriarch's current inner circle at the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Somewhat surprisingly it does contain an article on Orthodox-Reformed dialogue by a Presbyterian ecumenical theologian Joseph D. Small, which, although very informative, doesn't really contribute to the actual witness of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I (One can however agree with the editor's comment that although the Patriarch has not been involved in this dialogue, his ecumenical commitments are certainly in harmony with its goals.). This doesn't however diminish the value of the volume, as the contributions offer an excellent insight into the ecumenical commitment of the Patriarch, his position within the wider Orthodox world; his environmental concerns; his positions on state and church relations’ and – last but not least –his concept of Europe (also in view of Turkey's possible EU membership). Glimpses of Bartholomew I's biography and of the history and current situation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate help us to comprehend the contexts that have contributed to the formation of this outstanding ecumenical figure. Born in 1940 on the island of Imvros in Turkey, Bartholomew I attended the Patriarchal School at Halki (closed by Turkish authorities in 1974) in the 1960s, followed by studies in Rome, Munich, and Bossey. In 1968 he received his doctorate in Rome, one year before he was ordained to priesthood. Hence Patriarch's close contact with Western, especially Roman Catholic, theological thought started at a highly significant ecumenical time: during and right after the Second Vatican Council. His active ecumenical engagement with WCC started in 1970s. In 1977 – then still as Metropolitan of Philadelphia from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople – he became a member of the WCC Commission on Faith and Order and served as its vice moderator from 1984 to 1991. In 1991, then as Senior Metropolitan of Chalcedon, Metropolitan Bartholomew was appointed for a third term as an Orthodox member of the committee, a few months before he was elected Ecumenical Patriarch in October 1991. During the period of his active engagement in Faith and Order, several significant study processes were carried out. Bartholomew I was a member of the steering group for the study project Towards the Common Expression of the Apostolic Faith Today. As Mary Tanner, former moderator of WCC Commission on Faith and Order and current vice-president of WCC, rightly notes in her article, it was probably due to the immense attention paid to Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (1987) that the outcome of this study project, “Confessing the One Faith: An Ecumenical Explication of the Apostolic Faith as It Is Confessed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed” (COF) (1991), didn't receive the attention it deserved. The fact that COF was republished in 2010 and has become a major resource in many faculties proves the ecumenical significance and relevance of this document. Günther Gassmann (former director of WCC Faith and Order Commission) says in his article that Bartholomew's voice, concerns, and theological-ecumenical orientations became even more clearly recognizable after he was elected Ecumenical Patriarch. In analyzing the Patriarch's homily at the 60th Anniversary of WCC in Geneva, Gassmann refers to his concerns regarding the right balance in WCC's work between discussions on the content of faith, church order, and structures and the more pragmatic way of viewing ecumenism mainly as action by the churches in the world and for the world. The question of what this relation should look like continues to be relevant for other ecumenical bodies. The Patriarch's deep ecumenical commitment and his understanding that conflicting issues cannot be resolved before first addressing the underlying theological questions also played a decisive role in the continuation of Orthodox-Roman Catholic dialogue that almost broke down over the question of uniatism in the early 1990s. Ronald G. Roberson, CSP, offers an insightful overview of the Patriarch's role in continuing the dialogue, and he highly values the combination of his loyalty to the Orthodox position on divisive questions such as the primacy of the Pope and his deep conviction that dialogue is the only path toward greater respect for one another. The only contribution from an Orthodox author is by Peter C. Bouteneff, an Orthodox lay theologian from the Orthodox Church in America, a church that has had its tensions with the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the question of autocephaly. Although admitting that discussions on the concept of “diaspora” and on autocephaly, as well as the conflict between the Patriarch's insistence that the supra-ethnic character of the Patriarchate vis-à-vis predominantly Greek ethnic composition of the Sacred and Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople are to be addressed critically, the author acknowledges the immense intra-Orthodox significance of the Patriarch's extra-Orthodox witness. The Patriarch has continued to offer an important counterbalance to increasing hostility against the ecumenical movement within some Orthodox churches, helping to avoid the “self-secterianization” of Orthodoxy. Bouteneff refers also to the importance of the environmental concerns of the “Green Patriarch.” Some Orthodox see in these concerns barely an accommodation to the political left, failing to recognize that his ecological concerns are based on strong theological arguments. Precisely this can become one of his important ecumenical contributions today, as the conversations around the issues of climate change and justice sometimes tend to lack strong theological arguments, even in ecclesial circles. The Ecumenical Patriarchate finds itself politically in a somewhat marginal situation, living under the complicated conditions of the Turkish law that recognizes the Patriarch only as the spiritual leader of the small community of Greek Orthodox Christians in Turkey, not as the spiritual leader of Orthodox Christians in other parts of the world (In his interviews, the Patriarch hasn't really hidden his assessment that Turkey provides only “second-class citizenship” to Orthodox Christians.). Dale T. Irvin, an American Baptist theologian, is quite right in his analysis when he says that, while causing many difficulties, this almost exilic situation of the Patriarch allows him to be a bridge to a much greater extent than would have been possible under the conditions of recognized power. Yet it is not only life at the margins, but also life at the (historical) meeting points of different cultures and religions that helps the Patriarch to exercise his ecumenical ministry and has influenced his views on state and church relations as well as on “European identity.” Anna Maria Aagaard, a Lutheran theologian from Denmark, analyzes the Patriarch's understanding of “European idea” and state-church relations on the basis of his interviews, speeches, and writings. The article provides a good picture of his respective thoughts and their theological foundation. For the Patriarch, the core of the European idea lies in the notion of personal freedom. He links the notion of “person” to the Orthodox anthropology and trinitarian theology, stating that every form of community, be it the workplace, the school, the city, or even the European Union, has its vocation to become a living icon of the Trinity in loving mutual relations, as a person requires communion. Taking again theology as the starting point, the Patriarch emphasizes that the Christian gospel, which is “the mystery of the ‘Other’ inscribed in the heart of Unity,” calls us to religious tolerance for the “Other.” The Patriarch values religious freedom and pluralism as they reflect the mystery of God's freedom and God's respect for human freedom. These ideas also provide a solid theological foundation for Ecumenical Patriarchate's support of Turkey's EU membership. The Patriarch's views on secularism and European Enlightenment are far more reflective than the one-sided negative assessments made by some church hierarchs. The Patriarch attributes Europe's commitment to democracy, human rights, and religious freedom both to the idea of Christian Europe and to the process of secularization that over time emancipated political, social, and cultural spheres from ideological dominance and religious fanaticism. However, this doesn't mean that he wouldn't express himself disappointed over the growing marginalization of Christianity in the life and educational systems of European societies and the lack of reference to Christianity's impact on the formation of modern Europe in the latest version of the European Constitutional Treaty. It is also not the total separation of church and state that the Patriarch stands for; rather he prefers to describe “mutual respect and cooperation” with the key Orthodox term for church-state relations: symphonia (which certainly needs to be revised in the 21st century, compared to the times of Byzantine Empire). It is a true pleasure to read this volume, as it provides a broad testimony of the witness of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, and one can only agree with Günther Gassmann that Patriarch Bartholomew “is also an ‘Ecumenical’ Patriarch in the most direct and specific sense of being the servant of the whole church for the whole world”(60). Anne Burghardt serves the Lutheran World Federation as secretary for ecumenical relations.