Page 287 - Orthodoxy Zizioulas

I N T E R C O M M U N I O N A N D T H E N AT U R E O F T H E C H U R C H
marked a significant step for the ecumenical movement, mov-
ing beyond confessionalism towards a theology that is more
existentially meaningful. Faced with this new direction, the
Orthodox found themselves unprepared and thus unable to
make a positive contribution initially. Despite the frequent
temptation to issue separate statements during ecumenical
gatherings (as happened at Evanston in 1956), they have grad-
ually begun to find their path within this new framework.
However, things became more challenging when Churches
from the Third World started to dominate the scene within the
Council, and particularly after the Uppsala Assembly in 1968,
which appeared to shift the focus of the ecumenical move-
ment towards a so-called “horizontal” dimension—emphasiz-
ing social and political issues—rather than maintaining a “ver-
tical” concern for theological matters, worship, and related
spiritual themes.
This new orientation, which now seems to prevail, albeit in
a significantly modified form, has brought to light the critical
issue of the role of “history” in Orthodox consciousness. The
Orthodox appear somewhat indifferent to contemporary po-
litical and social issues, focusing primarily on the doctrinal
and liturgical aspects of the Church. There is much truth to
this impression: the East has always differed from the West in
its evaluation of history, with its perspective strongly shaped
by the Church’s eschatological dimension. This difference can
pose a real challenge for the ecumenical movement as a whole,
highlighting the need to achieve a “catholic” vision through a
synthesis of both perspectives—the “Eastern” and the “West-
ern.” On the other hand, this issue might also serve to illustrate
the necessity for both sides of Christianity to listen carefully
to one another and to work creatively toward a more genu-
inely catholic ἔθος (ethos).
287