Fr K.M. George – Former Principal of  the Orthodox Theological Seminary in Kottayam

As a senior theologian of the Orthodox Church in Kerala how do you look at the world scenario as well as the Kerala situation of ecumenism?

The ecumenical movement in its early phase inspired much enthusiasm among churches. The ideal unity of the Christian churches as one body based on the prayer of Christ “that all may be one” inspired all. There were great leaders too. But by 1980s it gradually began to wane.
What are some of the reasons for the loss of enthusiasm?
The modern ecumenical movement started in the early decades of the 20th century as a west European movement in the triumphant period of colonial empires. The World Council of Churches (WCC) was founded in 1948 in Geneva. Some of the pioneers, mainly Protestant leaders, conceived the idea of one world and one Church under the lordship of Jesus Christ with the imperial model at the back of their minds. The Second Vatican Council in the 1960s enthusiastically advocated the ecumenical opening of the Catholic Church. Already some Orthodox Churches like the Greek, Indian Malankara and Ethiopian Churches were founding members of the WCC in 1948. By 1961 all other Orthodox Churches joined the WCC. Parallel to the rise of the ecumenical movement decolonisation started and empires were dismantled. The pluralistic voice of the “third world,” African, Asian and Latin American, challenged the European singular vision of ecumenism. Leadership gradually shifted to non-western churches though financial strings were still with the rich western churches. Pentecostal-evangelical-charismatic waves added a new dimension.

Were there theological reasons?

Yes, many. There was search for an adequate model for unity. Some held the notion of an organic union. Others rejected it for the sake of the diversity in culture, organisation and jurisdiction. The Protestant leaders seemed less interested in doctrinal unity. “Doctrine divides, Service unites” was a popular slogan. The Catholic Church stood by its positions like the Pope’s universal authority (Pastor universalis) as Peter’s successor and the claim of being the true Church of Christ. The Orthodox Churches harked back to the tradition of the one undivided Church assuming that they held the true doctrine unalloyed. They pointed to unity in one Eucharist and one apostolic faith without implying any jurisdictional elements. In contemporary bilateral theological dialogues great progress has been made. But the decision- making circles seem to be slow and rather reluctant to integrate their findings in to actual practice.

Was the idea of the Synod helpful?

Yes, very much. In the 1980s the model of Conciliar unity (from council) was mooted and debated in the WCC. The post-Vatican II Catholic Church from Paul VI onwards started convening regular Synods of bishop. I had the privilege of attending two such Synods at the Vatican as delegatus fraternus in 1998 under John Paul II and in 2008 under Benedict XVI. The Orthodox Churches have always been synodical in their theology and governance though in practise they too can err.

How do you see the contributions of Pope Francis in this regard?

Pope Francis has taken the synodal principle to great heights by his own personal examples and style of life. As the new Pope his remarkable first statement “I am the Bishop of Rome” goes a long way in settling major ecclesiological issues between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. A religious leader of his stature, compassion, understanding and simplicity gives us much hope for a new model of life and a polyphonic dialogue with the world.

Do you think the ecumenical movement has any real future?

Yes. The search for unity is always valid and demands our full Christian commitment. The WCC and the Vatican Council have created a new attitude of mutual openness in our local situations. They have challenged us to engage the pluralistic and secular world in new ways towards the common good of humanity. In matters such as human rights and dignity, liberation of the oppressed, justice to the poor, healing to the broken hearted, reconciliation in conflict situations and fostering dialogue between religions the ecumenical movement has enormously contributed. So the future is ours to create on such solid ground.

In Kerala the strains of division with the Jacobite Church is widening. What impedes unity?

In fact, I don’t consider the two parties as two churches. They are one Church, one faith, one liturgy, and one family. My seminary training took place in the united church. As professor and principal at the 200-year old Kottayam Seminary (Pazhaya Seminary) of the Orthodox church I never taught division nor insinuated any student to hate the other side, but made all efforts in my own modest way to seek reconciliation. There is, however, a real question at issue, namely the freedom and autocephaly of the Indian Church of Malankara professing the apostolic tradition of St Thomas in conflict with the claims of the Patriarchate of Antioch since the middle of the 19th century. All legal and canonical-constitutional issues in Kerala have been definitively settled thrice by the Supreme Court of India from 1958 to 2017. There were different judges at different times but all reaching the same conclusion. The united church happily complied by it for some 14 years. The repeated verdicts of the apex court of India are for an all-inclusive settlement, that is, no one involved in the matter is excluded. All are beneficiaries. It provided space for all believers, top hierarchs, regular parishes and all canonically ordained clergy in a very inclusive and legally stable way. A golden opportunity for restoring unity! But some sections of the believers are being criminally manipulated by some leaders to break away from any peace settlement. If people on both sides are willing to live together in peace and the unity of faith and worship, the crucial question arises: who divides them and for what? The leaders should answer this. They are accountable to the believing people who in good faith and trust follow them. They should re-examine their objectives and return to the gospel of Christ and the rule of law of the Church and the country. I am also convinced that the roots of this scandalous conflict go back to the time of the Portuguese occupation of the one Indian Church of St Thomas. The very first colonial power divided us in the name of ecclesiastical affiliation alien to the Indian Church. Then the British continued the tactic of division in Protestant ways. The Indian Church lost her sense of apostolic freedom and self-rule, and for various reasons, by force or by piety, a large number of our people submitted themselves to alien ecclesiastical powers. The malaise remains in all our churches in one way or another to this day. The present “Orthodox – Jacobite” conflict can be logically and psychologically traced to this 400 year history of slavishness.

What about globalisation, spirituality and future?

I have long held that globalisation is a splendid bubble – an imperial left-over of conquerors and profiteers. See how it globalises the pandemic too. The Church should not be seduced by it. We should go for the indigenous, culturally rooted and self-ruled communities of faith as in the ecclesiology of the early Church. Sacramental communion, sharing of material resources with the needy and collegiality are universally possible without universal authority structures. I have a rather utopian vision for all our different churches in India that they should take steps towards realizing one self-ruled and culturally rooted Indian Church in spiritual communion with all ancient symbolic centres of Christianity like Rome and Antioch, Baghdad and Alexandria, Constantinople and Canterbury in one apostolic faith in Christ. If all are committed to the Gospel of Christ in love and truth everything is possible. If not people would abandon institutional churches and go for various upstart gurus of spirituality.