Academic literature on the topic 'War Work Council of the Unitarian Churches'

Ecumenism is a recurrent theme in Orthodox theological debates, but the syntagma “Orthodox ecumenism” is rarely used because it seems to be very restrictive and inappropriate. However, in exceptional situations, such as a war between two Orthodox peoples, I think it might be more than necessary. In the first part of this essay, I will discuss how the mirage of a “third” Rome and the partnership with the Kremlin makes the Russian Church an adversary of ecumenism inside of Orthodoxy. Any Church that blesses a war, aggression, and confrontation and shows imperial tendencies is excluded de facto from the communion with other Churches. In the second part of my work, I will analyze the consequences of the “schism” created by Patriarch Kirill in the bosom of Orthodoxy. What were (or what were not!) the positions of other Orthodox Churches when Patriarch Kirill blessed the war and betrayed the principles of the Gospel of Christ? Why is there a need for a so-called “Ecumenical Orthodox Council” and what are the chances of this happening?

The relationship of Modernism in architecture with the symbolic needs of church- building was fraught with the dangers of betrayal: whether the architect indulged in personal spiritual expression, or used traditional forms, he could be accused of stylistic excess; if he applied a reductive functionalism, the result could be faulted as failing the brief. After the Second World War, expression and tradition were gradually admitted into Modernism to expand and enrich its vocabulary, and the limits of functionalism were reassessed. Churches were a field in which architects of the Modern Movement could explore their new concerns with poetic form and monumentality, in contrast to the more prosaic jobs in housing, schools, and so on; but few architects had the chance to work on churches in quite the same volume as the more pressing post-war building tasks. One firm of architects with an exceptional opportunity was Gillespie, Kidd & Coia, responsible for a series of Roman Catholic churches in Scotland, ‘the finest body of post-war church building in Britain’, according to Elain Harwood.1 This work has attracted attention from architectural historians before, particularly for its rich and humane interpretation of sacred architecture.

Nationaler Protestantismus und Ökumenische Bewegung. Kirchliches Handeln im Kalten Krieg (1945–1990). By Gerhard Besier, Armin Boyens and Gerhard Lindemann (postscript by Horst-Klaus Hofmann). (Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungen, 3.) Pp. vi+1074. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1999. DM 86. 3 428 10032 8; 1438 2326This is indeed a formidable offering – three and a half books by three and a half authors, all for the price of one and a half – and it must be admitted to those whose stamina or German quail at the prospect that some of the viewpoints and a little of the material by two and a half of the contributors has been made available in English in Gerhard Besier (ed.), The Churches, southern Africa and the political context (London 1999) at £9.99. The soft option is, however, no substitute for the real thing, which, like that other blockbuster, the late Eberhard Bethge's Bonhoeffer, is a contribution both to scholarship and to a struggle inside the German Churches. This, readers in the Anglo-Saxon world need to assess as best they can. It is not often that attempts are made by both the World Council of Churches and their principal paymasters in the German Churches to stop the publication of a work of scholarship, to be foiled (in best nineteenth-century style) by the liberalism of the German Ministry of the Interior; but that has happened here. And the rest of the world has the more reason to be grateful to the ministry for the authors have exploited the archives of the Stasi and the KGB, access to the latter of which has now been closed under pressure from the Russian Orthodox Church, which appears to have more to hide than anyone.The link between all this and Besier's inquiries in America is provided by the sad fate of the Protestant Churches of the Ost-Block during the Cold War.

The great surge of Christian missionary activity during the course of the nineteenth century elicited a new concern for church unity. Was this missionary activity, after all, spreading division? In 1910 representatives of Protestant churches came together to respond to that question in Edinburgh at The World Missionary Conference. The conference in its turn channeled the concern to the sending churches. Although somewhat slowed down by World War I, the ecumenical movement grew and was punctuated by landmark events in The Universal Christian Conference on Life and Work (Stockholm, 1925) and The World Conference of Faith and Order (Lausanne, 1927). The report of this second conference included a description of what the churches assembled in their representatives shared in common and the many things that distinguished and sometimes divided them. When the World Council of Churches came into existence in August of 1948, the Faith and Order movement was integrated into it as a distinct agency whose concern was the doctrinal unity of the churches. Its signal achievement thus far has been the document entitled Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, frequently referred to as the Lima document, which sketches a proposal for a common understanding of these three aspects of the church across the churches. This document is the best example of what I will call “transdenominational ecclesiology,” and the fact that it has received so much attention from the churches indicates that it plays some important role in the whole church.

The convocation of the Local Council in 1917, the first Council in over two centuries, had a great significance for the internal life of the Orthodox Church of Russia. But in a period when the World War was still ongoing and there were pressing issues to resolve in the sphere of cooperation of Russian Orthodoxy with other orthodox and non-orthodox churches, the Local Council could not but touch upon the international and inter-church issues. For the first time in the history of Russian Church the official ecclesiastical forum was attended by official elected delegates who served abroad and who could bring the opinion of the foreign part of the Russian Church to its «maternal» part and to provide the mutually beneficial exchange of practices and opinions. Moreover, in a situation when the church was liberated from the tutelage of the state, it became possible to engage with foreign religious organizations not through social organizations or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but directly. This opened a way for creating the Church’s own structures which would be responsible for contacts with other confessions, including Old-Catholics and Anglicans, with whom there had already been lengthy unofficial dialogue. The efforts of some historians and publicists shaping contemporary discourse in Russia depict the restoration of the Patriarchate in the Russian Church as the only important act of the Council are challenged by the material presented in this article, which shows how the Council constructed the future position of Russian Orthodoxy in dialogue with the non-Orthodox churches, in its presence abroad and its missions in non-Christian countries. The word of the Council in this sphere was completely new and never before told. The Council was ahead of its time in the issues of international connections (like in many other spheres of its work). Many issues at the Council were expressed for the first time or in a completely new way. How to manage the missions abroad (in Japan, China, Korea, Urmia, and Palestine)? The Council, occupied with the internal problems in the situation of the beginning of persecution against it, could not abandon these missions. How was it possible to unite Russian emigrants abroad? The idea of Paris as a centre of their unification was expressed for the first time at the Council. The scholars who touched upon these issues before analyzed them through the concept of ecumenism (following the participation of the Russian Church in the ecumenical movement). But it seems more appropriate to research them in the context of the time of the Council itself, since it was a time that preceded the emergence of the Ecumenical Movement proper. The author of the article draws a conclusion that during the year of the Council (August 1917 – September 1918) the issues of international and inter-church relationships transformed in its agenda from being of secondary to primary importance. This conclusion allows us to challenge the dismissive perspective that the Moscow Council 1917-1918 was ineffective. Although it did not have time to complete its agenda, the Council was ahead of its time and contributed much for the future mission of the Russian Church in the modern world.

The purpose of the work is to examine the activities of the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations (AUCCRO) during the full-scale Russian military aggression against Ukraine. The methodology of scientific research is based on the use of a complex of general scientific, special historical methods and an interdisciplinary approach, tools of religious studies and sociology. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that here, on the basis of a wide source base, the activities of the Russian Federation of Civil and Political Affairs in the conditions of a full-scale Russian-Ukrainian war are considered. As a result, the authors come to the following conclusions. AUCCRO, in the conditions of full-scale Russian military aggression against Ukraine, intensified activities to mobilize Ukrainian society and the international community to confront the aggressor. In her appeals to the international community, she called for military and humanitarian support to Ukraine; seek the release of soldiers and civilians imprisoned by the aggressor state. Not without reason, the interfaith body demanded to recognize the actions of the Russian military as genocide of the Ukrainian people. In order to support Ukraine, AUCCRO strengthened cooperation with international humanitarian organizations; members of the Council visited individual countries and held meetings with the public, political and religious figures; and also met world religious leaders in Ukraine. In recent years, AUCCRO continued its law-making activities and discussion of important areas of state-church relations with representatives of higher state authorities of Ukraine. However, the position of AUCCRO was not always taken into account, in particular during the ratification by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of the Istanbul Convention and the adoption of the Law on the Legalization of Medical Cannabis.

Propheticness understood as a Christian interpretation of the world's spiritual, ideological and social challenges, is the primary dimension of ecumenical social thought. History of the ecumenical movement has many times confirmed this prophetical vision which often ran counter to or preceded dominant political and socioeconomic orders. The World Council of Churches’ model of responsible society has exemplified such a vision. Although today forgotten, a prophetical voice of ecumenism sounded at the conference of the Life and Work movement held in Oxford in 1937. The gathering, even though it took place in a gloomy time of political totalitarianism and socioeconomic crisis and in the shadow of the oncoming world war, produced a theological interpretation of the state and the economy, which later became an abundant source of ideas for the next decades of the ecumenical social teaching. The article aims to manifest the comprehensiveness and freshness of the Oxford concepts and, thereby, to demonstrate the Propheticness of ecumenical social thought. Eventually, it wishes to prove the relevance and significance of ecumenical teaching about society today. A survey of the subject literature and literary analysis is the primary method employed in the article.

Recent scholarship has argued that Cold War anticommunism was key among the tools with which conservative evangelicals in the United States negotiated their return to the mainstream of American public conversation. While useful, such renderings of the anticommunist leaven in the repoliticization of religious conservatives remain misleading as long as they remain pivoted on the small cadre of reputedly moderate new evangelical intellectuals. Entirely obscured in such portrayals is the agency of the militant separatist fundamentalists whose engagement with anticommunism was at once broader in scope, more systematic, organized and pervasive, and of significantly earlier lineage than that of their new evangelical rivals. The roots of the Christian Right do indeed lie in Cold War Christian anticommunism but the lines of influence stretch as much, if not more, from the fundamentalists gathered around the controversial pastor Carl McIntire and his American (and International) Council of Christian Churches as they do from the new evangelicals. A pivotal transitional figure who nurtured, renovated, and passed on to a new generation the anticollectivist public doctrines of the original fundamentalist movement. In his anticommunist work McIntire pioneered, as well, the faith-based mass demonstration and petition, the political use of Christian radio, and the lobbying of government officials that the later Christian Right perfected.

We consider the role of religion and religious leaders in the Soviet foreign policy towards Greece. The reasons for the conflict between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Greek Church were not rooted in religion, the cultural divide between the two autocephalous churches was transferred into the sphere of political regulation. On the issue of Russian monasteries on Mount Athos, we considered the Soviet-Greek church relations from 1946 to 1953. The events described took place during the Greek Civil War – 1944–1949, and the first years after it. Based on the documents of the State Archive of the Russian Federation and the letters of Patriarch Alexy I to the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, which are stored in it, the nature of the actions of Soviet representatives on the issue of Russian monasteries on Athos, we analyze and made an assessment of the actions of church representatives of the USSR in the line of external church relations. Based on the analysis of the source documentary material, we concluded that the USSR projected ideological dogmas on its foreign policy in the Orthodox world as well. Greek Civil War 1944–1949 showed the dependence of the confessional sector of Greek society on the political component. The political confrontation between the USSR and the USA turned out to be decisive in the adoption of the pro-Western state course of Greece, including in the religious society. It is shown that the peculiarities of the Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches, as participants in international relations, are the close coordination of their international activities with the work of the relevant state political institutions. The role of church diplomacy for establishing communications between the two states regarding the deplorable situation of Russian monasteries on Mount Athos is shown, and we make a conclusion about the peacekeeping potential of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is emphasized that based on the centuries-old experience of cooperation between politics and religion, we can talk about the existence of similar positions in the field of regulation of social activity.

During the Cold War, military and economic tensions between the US and the Soviet Union shaped the process of war in conflict regions in different parts of the world. The end of the Cold War in the early 1990s reshaped the balance of power in global politics, as new actors appeared on the global scene and global foreign policy shifted to mediating and providing humanitarian assistance in conflict regions zones. Humanitarianism became the method of conflict resolution, which provided humanitarian organizations, especially the religious ones among them, with the opportunity to have more influence in the outcomes of sociopolitical events occurring in the world. These dynamics impacted conflicts in Africa, especially within Sudan. This is because that era coincided with Sudan’s Second Civil War (1983-2005) between the Sudan People Liberation Army (SPLA) and the Government of Sudan (GofS). During the Cold War, both the US and Russia intervened in the civil war in Sudan by providing military and economic assistance to different parties, but, again, in the post-Cold War era humanitarianism was used in relation to the civil war. Transnational religious organizations provided humanitarian assistance in the war-torn and drought-afflicted regions in Southern Sudan, and sought to help implement peace initiatives to end the war. The organizations included Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS), a consortium of UN agencies and NGOs1 which was created in 1989. In addition, transnational religious groups based in the United States and Canada such as the Christian Solidarity International (CSI), the Canadian Crossroads, Catholic Relief Service, Mennonite Central Committee and the Lutheran Church got involved in humanitarian relief in Sudan. The global focus on religious humanitarianism extended to Southern Sudan as the New Sudan Council of Churches (NSCC) was founded in 1989-1990 to coordinate the humanitarian assistance. Because SPLA has led the civil war on behalf of Southern Sudan and had suzerainty over territories there, the humanitarian organizations had to build relationships with the SPLA to deliver relief through Southern Sudan and negotiate peace initiatives. This article analyzes how the transnational activities of the religious humanitarian groups shaped the evolution of SPLA from 1990 to 2005, with a particular focus on the US and Canadian organizations. We will see that the organizations influenced SPLA in a manner that impacted the civil war both in positive and negative ways. The organizations were ambivalent as, on one hand, they aggravated the conflict and, on the other hand influenced the development of both Church and non-Church related peace initiatives. Their humanitarian work was intricate as the civil war itself became more complex due to political issues that involved slavery, and oil extraction in Southern Sudan by US and Canadian multinational oil companies. All the parties involved took action to help end the civil war, but they all sought to serve their own interests, which jeopardized the possibility of a lasting peace. Thus, the interpretation of that history provides ways to help solve the current armed conflict in South Sudan.

Teaching Moral Sex is the first comprehensive study to focus on the role of religion in the history of public sex education in the United States. It examines religious contributions to national sex education organizations from the late nineteenth century to the early twenty-first century, highlighting issues of public health, public education, family, and the role of the state. It details how public sex education was created through the collaboration of religious sex educators—primarily liberal Protestants, along with some Catholics and Reform Jews—with “men of science,” namely, physicians, biology professors, and social scientists. Slominski argues that the work of early religious sex educators laid foundations for both sides of contemporary controversies regarding comprehensive sexuality education and abstinence-only education. In other words, instead of casting religion as merely an opponent of sex education, this research shows how deeply embedded religion has been in sex education history and how this legacy has shaped terms of current debates. By focusing on religion, this book introduces a new cast of characters into sex education history, including Quaker and Unitarian social purity reformers, the Young Men’s Christian Association, military chaplains, the Federal Council of Churches, and the National Council of Churches. These religious sex educators made sex education more acceptable to the public and created the groundwork for recent debates through their strategic combination of progressive and restrictive approaches to sexuality. Their contributions helped to spread sex education and influenced major shifts within the movement, including the mid-century embrace of family life education.

Abstract Throughout his presidency, Woodrow Wilson took credit for the accomplishments of the Federal Council of Churches as evidence of the healing work of “Christianity” in the nation and throughout the world. In 1917, Wilson took the advice of these Protestant ministers to enter the Great War and expand this good work of evangelism and “Americanization.” However, the more Wilson entrusted white Protestant clergy with the responsibility to establish industrial democracy and social justice, the less he entrusted working people, including the labor leaders, immigrants, and Black clergy and civic associations, who had their own definitions of both democracy and Christianity. By 1919, the long partnership between the Federal Council of Churches and the American Federation of Labor was coming to an end. The Great War christened the Federal Council of Churches as the nation’s foremost leader in social service, and the white Protestant clergy who presided quickly redefined the meaning of Christian nationhood.

Abstract Chapter 6 surveys the role of women in the ecumenical movement, beginning with its inception in the early twentieth century and culminating in the inaugural meeting of the World Council of Churches in 1948. The ecumenical movement was fundamentally wary of women, convinced that any talk of equality would damage the larger cause of Christian unity. Yet in the years after World War II, European churchwomen were restless for change, and angry at conservative rebuffs. This chapter follows the work of Twila Cavert, wife of a leading American ecumenist, in getting things started, convening a gathering of American and European churchwomen at Baarn, in the Netherlands, before the Amsterdam meeting of the World Council of Churches.

Abstract The modern ecumenical movement is conventionally dated from an event that took place in the first year of Lesslie Newbigin’s life and within a hundred miles of his parents’ Northumbrian home. A world missionary conference was held at Edinburgh, Scotland, in June 1910 in order “to consider missionary problems in relation to the non-Christian world.” From that event sprang both the International Missionary Council, formally constituted in 1921, and (at least in the mind of Bishop Charles Henry Brent) the Faith and Order movement, whose first world conference would gather at Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1927. In 1948—the agreement of 1938 having been delayed by the Second World War—Faith and Order merged with the Life and Work movement from the 1920s to compose the World Council of Churches; and in 1961 they were joined by the International Missionary Council.

This chapter traces Wim Visser ’t Hooft’s life from his birth at the beginning of the twentieth century in Haarlem in the Netherlands to his move to Geneva as international secretary for the YMCA in 1924. The chapter stresses his patrician and Remonstrant background, pointing out how this background shaped his worldview and taught him to think and act independently and on his own initiative. The chapter also traces important early influences on his thinking and theology, such as the NCSV (Dutch Christian Student Society) and Karl Barth. His work in student relief after the war showcased his networking and problem-solving capabilities. The qualities he developed were decisive for his career in the World Council of Churches.

After the end of the Second World War, the Serbian Orthodox Church found itself in new social and political circumstances, but also in the legal system of socialist Yugoslavia, which was significantly different from the legal system of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In 1946, the new communist government adopted the Constitution of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia, which, among other things, standardized the relationship between the Church and the state. On the territory of the newly formed socialist Yugoslavia, which had just come out of the war, the war against the Serbian Orthodox Church was still raging. From the positions of the new state authorities, liquidations and persecution of bishops, priests and believers of the Serbian Orthodox Church were carried out. Several laws were adopted that were directly directed against the Serbian Orthodox Church and other traditional churches and religious communities. The Law on the Serbian Orthodox Church from 1931 was repealed by the decision of the new communist government, as well as all other regulations that were passed until April 6, 1941. The Holy Council of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church could not be convened in a regular or extraordinary session in wartime conditions and due to the imprisonment of Serbian Patriarch Gavrilo (Dožić). On November 14, 1946, Patriarch Gavrilo returned to the country and assumed his patriarchal duties. The Holy Synod of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church, under the presidency of Patriarch Gavrilo, convened the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church for the first regular session after six years of being prevented from convening the highest church body. The session of the Holy Council of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church was held from April 24 to May 21, 1947 in Belgrade. Although there is a belief that amendments to the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church from 1931 were adopted at that session or that the "Constitution was changed", based on the relevant archival material and on the basis of the formal-legal element of this general ecclesiastical-legal act, it is established that The Holy Synod of Bishops, regardless of the numerous norms that have been retained from the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church since 1931, actually adopted the new Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The subject of this work is the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church from 1947, which is still in force in the Serbian Orthodox Church today.