The following is the text of an interview His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia, had with journalists in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on July 12, 2007. His Holiness visited Ethiopia and Egypt.

Q. Your Holiness, how would you describe the present state of the ecumenical movement?
A. The ecumenical movement is not a static reality, as a movement it is in constant search of new vision. The ecumenical vision must be based on the Gospel message and should take into consideration the concrete realities of the world. The message of Christ was responsive to the context and issues of its time. The ecumenical movement must adopt the same approach in order to be credible and relevant. Often we pay so much attention and waste so much time and spend so much energy and money on matters pertaining to the articulation of the ecumenical movement. But meanwhile we lost the essence, the spirit, the vision. Does the ecumenical movement have anything to say to the Christian of the 21st Century? Does it make any sense for those who are sick, poor, marginalized, oppressed, exploited, terrorized, divided. persecuted, etc.? The ecumenical movement should come down from the level of theories, concepts and methodologies to the level of concrete realities. The question is not simply to be in tune with the new world but rather to have a clear message, a concrete challenge to the men and women of today.

Q, In your recent book, For a Church Beyond its Walls, you state that we must go “beyond” institutions. What do you mean by that?
A. This is the main thesis and trust of my new book. By “institution” I do not mean only structure but also program, system, language, style, culture that permeate and dominate our lives. We have created them in specific times and for specific purposes. Because institutions become outdated and irrelevant, we must reinvent them; we must go beyond them; we must renew the old ones and create the new ones and make them more relevant, reliable and credible. This is what I mean by “beyond.” In my previous book, In Search of Ecumenical Vision, I emphasized the concept of “toward.” I believe that these two notions, namely “beyond” and “toward” complement each other and point to the same challenge, which I perceive in the following way: First, we can no more remain the prisoners of our institutions; we must renew, reform and revitalize them; second, we must challenge the status quo that oppresses, marginalizes and overpowers, and open ourselves to new horizons; third, we need to develop empowering and participator institutions and create broader spaces for effective interaction.

Q. The general perception in many church circles is that ecumenism is losing its relevance. Out of your many years of ecumenical experience as Moderator of the World Council of Churches, how do you react to this perception?
A. The ecumenical movement is neither going up nor down; it is, in a sense, in limbo; it requires a new vision. I want to spell out three concerns: First, the Common Understanding and Vision (CUV) policy statement of the World Council of Churches provides a broad and relevant vision. But, unfortunately, CUV has become a theological piece of paper resting on the shelves of the ecumenical movement. In my view it remains the most credible, timely and comprehensive point of reference for those who are seeking a new vision for the ecumenical movement. Second, the ecumenical movement needs a radical revision of its priorities and methodologies. Although restructuring and re-evaluation processes have been taking place in the last decade by many ecumenical institutions, in my assessment they have not kept pace with the rhythm of changing times and realities. Third, the most acute crisis that the ecumenical movement is facing is the lack of serious commitment on the part of churches towards the ecumenical cause. It looks that the ecumenical cause is no more a priority for many churches. Some have their own agenda and others look for visibility. How can we challenge the churches to re-own the ecumenical movement? How can we help the ecumenical movement regain its credibility and relevance? These questions must be addressed by ecumenical councils and organizations.

Q. Many people believe that the ecumenical movement has changed its focus from church unity to inter-religious dialogue. Do you agree with this view?
Q. Church unity is the raison d’etre of the ecumenical movement. It must continue to remain at the heart of the ecumenical reflection and action. I agree that there is a setback in ecumenical efforts aimed at the unity of the church mainly for the following reasons: First, after so many years of hard work, the ecumenical movement has not been able to make concrete steps on the way to unity. I see stagnation in ecumenical debate on unity. Second, it seems to me that the churches themselves are not very much interested in unity; they are more interested in strengthening their confessional unity. Third, inter-religious dialogue has become a clear priority for the churches and the ecumenical movement. It needs to be organized and integrated into the ecumenical agenda in a way that does not harm other priorities. The Faith and Order must revisit the unity debate by establishing a strong linkage between unity and ethical, missiological and pastoral issues that touch the existential life of our churches.

Q. The reconciliation that you have initiated between the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches was a great ecumenical achievement, in the words of a Coptic metropolitan, “You made history.” From your point of view, what is the importance of this reconciliation?
A. Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches belong to the family of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and, therefore, they are in unity of faith. Due to non-theological factors certain difficulties have emerged some forty years ago between these churches. This reconciliation was not an event, strictly speaking, but a process which I started in 1991 when as Moderator of the WCC I visited His Holiness Shenouda III and His Holiness Abba Paulos. I do not want to discuss here the details of this process. But I want to emphasize the special importance of this reconciliation for the Christian presence in Africa, for the Oriental Orthodox family and for the ecumenical movement at large. I consider reconciliation an important model for the ecumenical movement that deserves special attention. Let me elaborate my point. First, bilateral relations, collaboration and dialogue constitute the basis of the ecumenical movement. How can the churches meaningfully collaborate within a multilateral framework, if they cannot do that bilaterally? Second, multilateral ecumenism on the other hand, helps create an atmosphere of rapprochement and mutual understanding. Therefore, bilateral and multilateral dimensions of the ecumenical movement must be taken as an interrelated whole. Third, ecumenical collaboration may pave the way towards unity of faith. The interconnection of faith and work, which is clearly articulated in the New Testament theology, needs to be given due consideration in the ecumenical movement. Fourth, and finally, the ecumenical movement and the churches must give priority attention to reconciliation in its missiological, ecclesiological and pastoral aspects. We should bear in mind that the church is an “ambassador” sent to the world by Christ for reconciliation.