Anglicanism: The Real Orthodox Church in America

Dear N.:

A fantastic question, one that I have often asked myself. I would say that the differences between ourselves and the Orthodox Eastern Church are cultural and historical, not theological. Anglicanism is the Orthodox Church of the West. We differ from the Eastern Churches only in matters of discipline and expression, but we hold the fullness of the Orthodox Faith of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The OCA is Russophile or Slavophile. Actually, the OCA is a division or branch of the Russian Orthodox Church, given self-government or autocephaly by the Patriarchate of Moscow in 1970. The OCA was called the 'Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church' before it assumed its autocephalous status and current appellation 35 years ago. In essence, the Orthodox Church in America is a recognised off-shoot of the Russian jurisdiction. However, the whole of the canonical Orthodox Church, 'world Orthodoxy,' does not acknowledge the independence of the OCA. The Patriarchate of Constantinople, for example, has not clearly recognised the OCA as a separate self-governing Orthodox Church: I suppose the Phanar would see the OCA as a Russian jurisdiction birthed by Moscow. As the OCA is essentially a Russian Church with an English-translation liturgy, so is the Anglican Church a Western Church with a thoroughly orthodox liturgy in our own historical tradition. We westerners often accuse the Eastern Churches of the error of ethnophyletism, which is the confusion of faith and culture, yea, the identification of orthodox Christianity with a particular racial or ethnic group. I fear that accusation may be justified. Although the Eastern Churches swear up and down that they are not guilty of this confusion, the common praxis of the Eastern Church betrays an underlying attachment to this phenomenon. For the outsider at least, it appears the Eastern Orthodox behave as though to be Christian is to be Greek, Russian, or Arab. For this reason, I disappointingly believe that Eastern Orthodoxy can never fully proclaim the Gospel in a western society or culture. The Catholic Faith has never been fully incarnated by the Constantinopolitan Churches in a western context. Sometimes it seems our Eastern Orthodox friends are afraid, on a visceral and even subconscious level, of anything Western, fearing the contamination of 'papism.'

Historically, Anglicanism has enjoyed a very positive and healthy relationship with the Eastern Orthodox, mainly because both Churches have desired to affirm their positions in opposition to the Pope. Both are Apostolic and yet fiercely non-papal. Both Churches are conciliar Churches with the Seven Sacraments. In all honesty I think it must be said that the history of Anglican-Orthodox relations has been one of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' I say this because the Orthodox, although they have recognised the validity of Anglican Orders, have never really attempted to restore full sacramental communion with us, although such a restoration is not only possible but demanded by our clear theological agreement. The failure points to the aforementioned complex the Orthodox have about things western, as well as, if I may say it, to our own typical western arrogance (an arrogance which led the official Canterbury Communion utterly to destroy its relations with the Orthodox by unilaterally introducing the heresy of women's ordination). Our ultimate vocation as Anglicans is to proclaim and perpetuate the fullness of Orthodoxy in western terms and tradition. Now to be fair, the Orthodox have a very strong justification for rejecting the filioque clause of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which we have received via the sixth-century Latin Church. They also reject the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. For that matter, they require bishops to be celibate and priests and deacons to be married before ordination. They allow up to three ecclesiastical divorces per person. An old adage says that the difference between Anglicanism and the Eastern Church is 'our ordinations and their marriages.' There is a great deal of truth to this. The only substantial theological disagreement is the filioque, which is easily solved by either removing the filioque or re-interpreting it in a strictly Orthodox sense. The latter has already been done as of the 1875 Bonn Reunion conference, which used the doctrine of S. John of Damascus to show that the Father is the sole Origin or Source (arche or aitai or Fons Deitatis) in the Godhead, from Whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds, yet the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (dia) the Son. We already interpret the filioque in an Orthodox manner, if we reject the idea of a Double Procession or Double Origination of the Spirit from the Father and the Son as from two Sources in the Trinity. The other matters are merely ritual or disciplinary in nature. Until the Eastern Churches overcome an alienating ethnocentrism, the Anglican Church will remain the one Orthodox Church capable of evangelising western civilisation. We are the real 'Orthodox Church in America.'