Please enable javascript in your browser to view this site!

"Bridging Voices" Conference: Interview with Gregory Tucker

Photo by Gregory Tucker

Photo by Gregory Tucker

In August 2019, “Bridging Voices” conference took place in Oxford, UK, under the auspices of the British Council. According to the press release, “An international academic gathering of scholars, pastors, clinicians, and other experts took place in Oxford from 16th to 19th August, at which contemporary issues of sex, gender, and sexuality were discussed in relation to the Orthodox Church. The ground-breaking meeting brought together a wide variety of views on highly controversial social issues confronting the 260-million strong Orthodox Christian community. 

The conference was supported by the British Council as part of the second iteration of its “Bridging Voices” project. It was organized by a consortium of scholars from the University of Exeter and the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University.”

The Wheel spoke with Gregory Tucker, one of the organizers, about the conference.

1. Conference Planning 

What was the genesis of the conference? Who was involved in the organizing? What was its purpose as initially conceived? Did that purpose evolve, or did you adhere to the original intent?

The conference in August was one aspect of a two-year research project, which really had two starting points: the first was an informal conversation between the organizers over several years about the need to address urgent pastoral questions related to issues of sex, gender, and sexuality. These questions—which no longer present as abstract thought experiments (if ever they did!) but personal realities Orthodox parishes—have come steadily to the fore over the last sixty or seventy years, but they have intensified greatly over the last decade, not least because broad changes in social attitudes have led to changes in legal provisions for gender and sexual minorities in the West, and this affects everyone, including Orthodox Christians. The second starting point for the project was a call for applications for the second iteration of the British Council’s “Bridging Voices” project. This offered a specific framework for approaching these topics, which includes an emphasis on the intersection of religious belief and practice and secular policy.

One of the criteria for winning a Bridging Voices grant is that the project has to be led by a transatlantic team. Ours is headed by Brandon Gallaher (University of Exeter, UK) and Aristotle Papanikolaou (Fordham University, New York) and they are joined by three other scholars: Edward Skidelsky (Exeter), George Demacopoulos (Fordham), and me (University of Regensburg, Germany). Brandon and I took the lead on organizing the Oxford conference; Telly and George are directing a lot of the post-conference outreach efforts, which include a panel discussion at Fordham planned for November. Many of us have worked together in various contexts in the past and have been involved in other projects related to these topics. 

The project as a whole can be thought of as a fork with two prongs. The first aims to clarify and analyze the current thinking and practice of Eastern Orthodox Christianity with regard to sexual diversity and pluralism in secular contexts. Although many people promote the idea that the Church’s teachings in this area are univocal and universal, under closer inspection this often turns out not to be the case; so a realistic appraisal of the tradition is essential. The second aims to position the fruits of this work within contemporary secular discourses, in order to enable the development of a dialogue between clerics, theologians, and secular organizations, which is mutually beneficial. Overall, we are looking to facilitate a sustained, complex, and respectful conversation that, on the one hand, can help the church to respond appropriately to pastoral challenges in the areas of sex, gender, and sexuality, and on the other hand, can enable governments and secular organizations to better understand related Orthodox teachings and disciplines.

The conference was the culmination of efforts towards the first of these aims. It was conceived initially as a semi-public event in New York with a keynote lecture etc. in the style of many academic conferences (such as Fordham’s triennial Patterson Conference) but we soon decided that this was not going to strike the right tone. First, we didn’t want a “star” to launch the conversation with a prescriptive address that determined the direction of travel. Second, we realized that the explosiveness of these topics is such that many people do not feel comfortable speaking their mind on record (whatever it may be!), and so a more protected environment was going to be more likely to yield an honest and forthright dialogue. Third, and very much related, we came to appreciate that the success of the conference would depend upon real trust between the participants, so a retreat-like atmosphere would be beneficial. All this led us to move the conference to one of the smallest colleges of the University of Oxford, which we could take over entirely for a weekend. The venue was also chosen as a “neutral space” (i.e. not one belonging to the Orthodox Church) and this reflects the fact that the project is not an official effort with hierarchical sanction. 

A great deal of effort went into the invitations. From the outset, we hoped for a rich and diverse conversation. This necessitated inviting not only Orthodox clergy and theologians but also philosophers, ethicists, historians, sociologists, scientists, and clinicians, and some ecumenical observers. It was also absolutely essential, in our judgment, that arguments from all parts of the “liberal”–“conservative” spectrum should be heard. We spent a lot of time trying to maintain some kind of balance in this regard, often working on the basis of quite limited information about what someone in a given area might thinking about these topics. We usually—but not always!—made the right call. Somewhat surprisingly, it turned out to be quite difficult to get people to commit to making arguments for the received disciplines of the Church. We invited a number of well-known clergy and theologians who have published and spoken in defense of the Church’s current teachings and disciplines, but several did not want to engage with us. We regret that they didn’t participate, but in the end,  we were satisfied with the range of views expressed.

The Oxford conference was preceded by a digital workshop in February, during which 10 participants presented stimulus papers, two on each of five topic areas. They were joined by another 10 participants as conversation partners. We used this workshop to identify which areas and arguments would receive attention in the summer, when we brought together some 55 scholars.

2. Conference Proceedings

Previous efforts to broach the topic of human sexuality in the context of the Orthodox Church have met with limited success. Were you able to overcome some of these obstacles? Were you able to allow multiple voices from different perspectives to be heard at the conference? Was the conference structured in a way to be more productive than other efforts dealing with the same topic(s)? How would you describe the atmosphere among participants as the conference progressed? Were there any informal discussions among participants? If so, did they have any useful impact?

It's certainly the case that these conversations are very difficult for the Orthodox and, in truth, there have been very few efforts yet that have been really dialogical. Most of what we’ve seen so far is groups of people who already agree with one another meeting to reaffirm and re-echo their convictions. That’s not a waste of time because people need to find their voice before they speak, but those kinds of meetings run the risk of becoming echo-chambers and they are not going to move us beyond the polarized impasse that we currently find ourselves in. (It must be noted that some people do not want to pass beyond this impasse because it is reassuring to remain in familiar siloes and view the world through an “us vs. them” lens, but many people recognize the need to somehow move forward.) There are exceptions to this, of course—the smaller Amsterdam meeting a few years ago was a mixed group and the famous issue of The Wheel was quite ground-breaking in the breadth of opinion it represented. But in many ways, this project and the Oxford conference was a step into the unknown—and hopefully a step into the future.

As the conference unfolded, I was overwhelmed by the generosity and attentiveness that the participants showed towards one another. The whole event was pervaded by a spirit of peace which, I have to say, I believe was not the result of anything we did but was a gift and sign of the presence of Christ among us. That does not mean that there was not disagreement! There were very significant, sustained disagreements, and there was certainly discomfort on all sides as speakers laid out arguments and evidence and people responded to them. From the beginning, the atmosphere in the conference room was incredibly dense and there were moments when I feared that the whole thing was just going to fall apart or erupt. But we persevered through that and everyone kept their focus and their cool. It was for me personally an extraordinary privilege to witness what can happen when people who share a deep commitment to their faith tradition but profoundly disagree meet with charity. As one of the ecumenical observers commented to me, there was a rare “quality of togetherness” at this meeting.

The conference program was very carefully structured to achieve a balance between the intensity necessary to generate momentum and the space necessary to make sure that the pot doesn’t boil over! So, we met all together (there were no breakout groups or parallel sessions) in two-hour workshop divided into one hour of stimulus material and one hour for discussion. Every session could have run longer, but the time constraints actually worked well in general, forcing people to express themselves concisely and clearly. The workshops progressed through a series of topics: we began with perspectives on why this conversation matters and what is at stake, together with reviews of previous efforts; then we discussed foundational hermeneutic questions, followed by issues in theological anthropology and ethics, pastoral realities and challenges, the possible contribution of science, psychology, and other therapies, and finally sociological and political issues. These topics could have been arranged differently—some people would undoubtedly say that theology should proceed from pastoral realities to reflection rather than from theory to practice, for example—but this actually worked as a progressive discourse. 

Importantly, the schedule included a lot of breathing room and time to get to know one another. So after our inaugural session, we enjoyed a formal Oxford college dinner together and then adjourned to the bar. The second day included plenty of coffee and a long lunch. We broke in time for participants to attend vespers, and many of them did so together. It was quite moving to see people who had been really pushing each other intellectually all day then standing together in prayer. We resumed after Liturgy on Sunday with a very intense afternoon that gave way to a relaxed and jovial curry dinner, during which much conversation continue. Then our final day included time for wide-ranging discussion and a farewell lunch. All of this social time was absolutely essential. Though it sounds trite, it gave strangers the opportunity to become friends and see one another in their complex and rich humanity, not merely as icons of particular stances in a contentious argument! I think a lot of important bridge-building took place over the meals. As I said to the participants in my closing remarks, if we could all go away and say honestly to the members of our various communities, “Here, I met Christians of good will!” then we will already have taken an important step towards reconciliation and truth. 

3. Conference Outcomes

Was this conference a one time deal, or did you and/or other organizers feel that there exists some hope for future dialogue? Can you characterize the personal reactions among the conference participants once the proceedings were concluded? Can anything called “progress” be described as an outcome? If so, in what sense? Were there dissenting voices among participants concerning the conference outcomes? How would you describe the impact of the conference for the future of discussions in the Church?

The conference was a one-off in the sense that it is part of a limited project with an end date, but there was definitely a shared, perhaps even universal, sense of the need for continued dialogue. Several participants have already put forward suggestions for ways to keep the conversation channels open. One participant kindly extended an invitation to an upcoming conference at St Tikhon’s Seminary, PA on this topic. So there is, I think, not only hope but an expectation that this dialogue will continue. This is absolutely necessary and we never imagined that this conference would be the end of the story. Although there are many people in the Orthodox Church who believe that the final word has already been spoken on these issues, there are very many others who are just as certain that it has not! We conducted interviews during the conference for a short video (which we hope will be out before too long!) and one of the questions asked was, “What questions in the areas of sex, gender, and sexuality remain to be answered for the Orthodox Church” More than one interviewee said, “All of them!”

I think, on the whole, the participants were glad they came and grateful for the opportunity to learn from one another. I didn’t personally hear anyone say that they wish they hadn’t come, although I am aware that some people were troubled or hurt by some things that were said. This was probably inevitable. Nobody spoke with the intention of being provocative or wounding anyone else, but the organizers did ask participants to really speak their minds and to resist side-stepping the most difficult parts of the conversation. I have been encouraged that none of the participants has “broken ranks,” as it were, and condemned the whole thing post factum—this is despite some external pressure from both “sides” of the argument to do so. The organizers didn’t try to restrict how people reported their experience (beyond the imposition of the Chatham House Rule, which means that speakers cannot be identified with the ideas they expressed), so I’m taking this as evidence that people are generally satisfied with what happened and think the exercise was worth undertaking. 

It’s hard to talk about “progress” beyond what I’ve already said about the success of the process. We didn’t set out to reach consensus or issue an agreed statement. And since there was no attempt to construct an agreed statement (even the official press release was issued only in the name of the organizers and not the conference as a whole), it’s not really possible to talk about dissenting voices. I know there are people who feel that there was insufficient attention given to their “side” of the argument or their specific field of expertise—but, reassuringly, these people fall across the spectrum of opinion! I’m also not sure the organizers really wanted to change anyone’s mind! The situation in the Church is too polarized and fractured at the moment to push hard on anyone’s views in this kind of context. This was really about encouraging people to speak to one another. In that respect, I think it was successful. Time will tell, of course, but I think there was a humble kind of progress.

At this point, it’s also hard to talk about the impact of the conference or the project as a whole. On the one hand, the project leaders will be working over the next year to develop the conversation in a more policy-oriented direction with a view in particular to helping the British government better understand issues of sexual diversity in the Orthodox context. We hope to meet with members of Parliament and we will be working on policy documents. On the other hand, when it comes to direct impact of the Church, we simply offer this experience as a sign that what often seems impossible is perhaps possible. There are ways in which the polarization of this debate can be overcome; there are ways of talking about these issues that both acknowledge the tradition and treat sexual and gender minorities with dignity; there are ways of bringing people together for sustained, complex conversation, shielded from the reactionary and uncharitable judgments of the Orthodox internet. Beyond that, the list of participants has been published; our interim report will soon be available; summary papers are appearing on Public Orthodoxy; there may eventually be a conference volume. For those in the Church who are looking for them, these are valuable resources—most especially the participants themselves. “Progress” in this area—whatever that may mean in the end—is going to depend on the multiplication of personal efforts and the continued development of relationships; no decree from on high is going to resolve the crisis which is in danger of overwhelming us. But there is hope.

NKV_6189.jpg

Gregory Tucker is a research assistant and doctoral candidate at Regensburg University, Germany. His current research is focused on the Middle Byzantine liturgy in its theological context. He holds the degrees of BA and MSt from the University of Oxford and MA from St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary.

Open Letter to the Members of the Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe

Open Letter to the Members of the Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe

“Things that are impossible to accomplish by formal means may be accomplished by virtue of grace” 

Archpriest Nicolas Afanasiev 

My brothers and sisters in Christ! 

I am grateful to everyone who spoke during our assemblies, who expressed their views in open letters, analyzed our current crisis and proposed specific solutions. However, in the process of familiarizing myself with your opinions, I have unexpectedly come across an interesting aspect of our discussion, namely, that all of our positions polarize around one and the same dilemma, one and the same horizontal choice: Moscow or Constantinople? Why is that? 

Letter from Europe

Letter from Europe

Christian Orthodox tradition believes that between Easter and Pentecost the heavens are open. This means that if we have eyes of faith, we will be able to contemplate, in wonderment, the angels of heaven ascending and descending the ladder that unites God and men.

In this so joyous moment of our ecclesial life, however, we must humbly recognize that the Orthodox Church is going through a critical period. The Churches of Moscow and Constantinople have broken off their dialogue. This rupture is aggravated by the rupture of communion as we so sadly observe. This is experienced as an authentic drama by the Orthodox people who have no desire to see the Orthodox Church sunk in a schism. Added to that is the crisis of the Archdiocese of the Churches of Russian Tradition in Western Europe following the suppression of its status as an exarchate in November of 2018. This archdiocese is divided between those who believe that they have a future only within the Patriarchate of Moscow and those who think that a new modus vivendi with the Patriarchate of Constantinople can still be found.

Katherine Kelaidis: What Dialogue Means

Unless one is particularly interested in the politics of North American Christianity, it is easy not  to know about the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). Founded in 2009, the ACNA is a schismatic group within the global Anglican Communion created by former members of the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada (the official provinces of the Anglican Communion in North America). The vast majority of ACNAs members, particularly among the clergy, broke with the Anglican Communion because of the main bodies decisions to ordain women (though this subject is treated in a variety of ways by ACNA dioceses) and extend full sacramental inclusion to LGBT people.

Viktor Alexandrov: The Choice Facing the Archdiocese

While the attention of the Orthodox community and the secular world has been focused on the Ukrainian autocephaly, another “hot spot” has appeared on the Orthodox world map - the Archdiocese of Russian Churches in Western Europe[i]. On November 27, 2018, the Synod of Patriarchate of Constantinople announced a decision to revoke the charter (tomos), by which in 1999 autonomy was granted to the Archdiocese, and its own statutes were guaranteed .

Nicholas Denysenko: After the Council: Challenges Facing the Orthodox Church of Ukraine

When Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko initially announced that the Ecumenical Patriarchate (EP) would grant autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, the promise seemed overconfident at best, and delusional at worst. For decades, global Orthodoxy has recognized the canonicity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP), and dismissed the Kyivan Patriarchate (KP) and Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) as uncanonical schismatics.

The events of 2018 unfolded with one surprise after another. Clergy, laity, and students of Church history were stunned when Patriarch Bartholomew informed Patriarch Kirill of the EP’s intention to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.

Cyril Hovorun: Ukraine, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and Post-truth

A sickness which long afflicted the Ukrainian church had become chronic. That is probably the best way to describe the background to the Ecumenical Patriarch’s historic decision to take responsibility for spiritual affairs in Ukraine.

Millions of faithful have remained outside the Eucharistic communion with the world Orthodoxy and in a state of schism for decades. We are not talking about one lost sheep but an entire flock.

I have had many opportunities for personal contact with the people who have been described as schismatic, because they belong to the unrecognised Kyiv Patriarchate. They are good Christians who pray with fervour and attend church with zeal. I have not observed among them any fanaticism or ethnic prejudice. At any rate, these qualities are no more evident among them than they are among any other historically Orthodox people. Yes, they love their homeland, but they have an even greater love for the Holy Church. Which has left them in isolation for decades.

Nicholas Denysenko: An Orthodox Graveyard and the Tomos of Autocephaly for Ukraine

I have many vivid memories from my first visit to Ukraine in 1993, taken with my brother and grandfather. During our stay in Tetiiv (approximately 80 kilometers west of Kyiv), our family hosts asked us to walk with them to the family cemetery. This visit occurred after a few days of conversation that were simultaneously tense and joyous, as we learned about our family’s perspectives on faith and politics along with their concerns about post-Soviet Ukraine. All of these concerns were put aside as we walked from grave to grave, with most of the family members unable to hold back tears for the departed loved ones who were murdered during the course of the Holodomor of 1932-33. This memory reminds me how long Ukrainians have been caught in the crossfire of wars and revolutions, as the imperial powers to their West and East have fought to expand their borders and increase their power. The memory of the Holodomor united us in spite of our differences because we all felt the sting of violent murder in the name of someone else’s gain, even if it was passed on to us.

Ukraine attained statehood in 1991 following 74 years of colonial occupation. When Ukraine initially sought to establish a sovereign republic after the fall of the Tsarist regime in 1917, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine began the natural process of re-organizing its life in rhythm with the aspiring nation.

John Jillions: "Thicket of Idols": Alexander Schmemann's Critique of Orthodoxy

John Jillions: "Thicket of Idols": Alexander Schmemann's Critique of Orthodoxy

Part I of this essay will examine Schmemann’s journals for the various streams of his critique and argue that the doubts, criticisms and questions Schmemann first raised privately many years ago still need serious public attention as Orthodoxy seeks to find its voice, message and mission in the 21st century. However, if Fr Alexander’s vocation as a prophet (though he himself would have eschewed that title) led him to speak clearly, convincingly and critically about the realities he saw, he was much more ambivalent about proposing solutions. Without attempting to guess what his solutions might be today, in Part II of this essay I will suggest that Fr Alexander’s sharp critique can be channeled into positive terms by refocusing the Orthodox Church on Christ as scriptural, contemplative and self-emptying.

Jim and Nancy Forest: The Green Patriarch’s Campaign for a Greener World

Soon after his election to the throne of Ecumenical Patriarch in 1991, Bartholomew of Constantinople made clear that he saw his task not only as safeguarding the unity of the Orthodox Church but also doing all that he could to protect the world and its people in a period of extreme environmental peril. He quickly began to enlarge an initiative taken in 1989 by his predecessor, Patriarch Dimitrios, who had invited all Orthodox churches to begin the church year, the first of September, with prayer for all creation and for its preservation. In the years since, Bartholomew has repeatedly declared that “crimes against the natural world are sins….

Denis Bradley: Thoughts on "A Preliminary Response"

In his "Preliminary Response" (The Wheel, Blog, 28 February 2018) to Professor David Ford's "Open Letter on Homosexuality" (Orthodoxy in Dialogue, 8 November 2017) Mr. Gregory Tucker raises (without using the term) the issue of the "development of doctrine." That, to be sure, is a neuralgic term for the Orthodox theologians who regard it as instantiating a fundamental error, even perhaps the seminal heresy, sustaining the other deviations from "The Tradition" which they perceive in Western Christian belief, praxis, and theology. Professor Ford might well concur with the Reverend Professor Andrew Louth who contends that the idea of doctrinal development is not "a valid category for Orthodox theology," an astonishingly ironic assertion given the honoree of the Festschrift wherein Louth's remark is published [1].

Gregory Tucker: A Preliminary Response to Dr Ford's Open Letter on Homosexuality

This short essay will, with one hand, attempt to point out some of the foundational ideas that support the views expressed by Dr Ford in his open letter, and, with the other, gesture towards an understanding of how these differ from the fundamental presuppositions of those who have diverged in their conclusions on matters of sex, gender, and sexuality.

Cyril Hovorun: Ethnophyletism, Phyletism, and the Pan-orthodox Council

The Pan-orthodox Council held on the island of Crete in June 2016 established its succession to the Council held in Constantinople in 1872. Both Councils dealt with the topic of nationalism, which the majority of scholars agree is a modern phenomenon: nationalism, and even national identity, constitute an intrinsic feature of modernity. The two Councils, however, addressed this phenomenon each in their own way.

Carrie Frederick Frost: “Women Willing to Offer Themselves”: The Historic Consecration of Deaconesses in Africa

Several Orthodox women were made deaconesses in Democratic Republic of Congo on February 17, 2017. Though this is a remarkable and historical event not just in African Orthodoxy, but in Orthodoxy the world over, it took about five days for this news to travel into English-speaking quarters of the Church. This time lag is indicative of both the lack of communication channels among international theologians and hierarchs and the independent character of each of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches. The Synod of Alexandria, which had moved in November of 2016 to pursue the revival of the female diaconate, needed neither permission from, nor consultation with any other part of the Church to grant these women diaconal ministry earlier this month.