Margarita Neliubova, Russian Orthodox Church

This forum is an important milestone in the process started in 1994 at Bratislava.

However, it wouldn't be correct to say that the Bratislava meeting started the appraisal of diaconia in Eastern Europe. This appraisal grew out of the need to open a debate on, and to understand, the processes which emerged in the life of European churches vis-a-vis the political, social and economic changes in Europe and the place of diaconia within this new context. The Bratislava meeting was called to evaluate diaconal development after the fall of the "iron curtain", to define needs and priorities and to plan a joint strategy. This was an important stage in the ecumenical diaconal journey which gathered together individual, separate efforts until many were walking together.

Now we meet seven years later, again at a diaconal forum to discuss what has been done, where we are now and what will be our future. For this discussion, I would like to offer my observations and questions as follows.

1. Since Bratislava, the political context in Eastern and Central Europe has changed further.

• Some of our countries in Eastern and Central Europe have grown closer in perspective to the European Union. This factor plays an important role determining the development of relations between governments and churches/diaconia, both within the various countries and in their partnerships across borders. This is a very complex phenomenon, as it implies not only the integration of diaconia into the social welfare systems of states, but also new challenges and requirements, e.g. the need to adjust one's own understanding and visions to the Maastricht Treaty, which is not rooted in the life of each particular country.
• At the same time there are other countries in Eastern and Central Europe which are very low on the EU candidate list, if they are on it at all, and often do not yet have sufficient legislative bases for diaconal development.

These phenomena create a new dividing line within Europe, and don't contribute constructively to the diaconal exchange within Eastern and Central Europe.

Now, seven years after Bratislava, we often speak of a new profile of diaconia in Eastern and Central Europe. It is true that diaconia has changed, especially in Eastern and Central Europe!

• diaconal organizations have grown - in numbers and size
• their activities have grown - they now serve more beneficiaries
• the quality of their service and professionalism has grown; they have became more confident of their service; their relations - both vertical and horizontal - are more stable and creative.

At the same time, there are still open questions for a debate:

• What is the image, or what are the various images, of diaconia in Europe today?
• Can we speak of an identity of diaconia, and what would be its essence?
• To what extent is diaconia visible in the overall social welfare context in our countries; what is its scale and outreach, both in terms of numbers of beneficiaries and ethical/spiritual outreach? What of the two is more important?
• Who carries out diaconia predominantly - volunteers or professionals? What model are we working towards - institutional or parish-based diaconia?
• To what extent is it linked to liturgical life, and what is our vision in this respect?

In 1994 we spoke of tensions of various kinds, including ecumenical tensions understood as an element of this transition period, as opposed to the process of looking for one's own confessional identity.

Now we are hearing from some parts of Europe that:

• ecumenical tensions are lessening;
• the grass-roots are becoming ecumenically open, but the leadership is reserved;
• sometimes it is the other way around - the leadership is open for ecumenical cooperation, but the laity is still in opposition;
• in some countries where ecumenism is no longer a question for debate, polarization is growing between liberals and conservatives within one denomination, which makes us speak of intra-denominational ecumenism. Where are we now? How is the political factor - being a minority or majority church - influencing the ecumenical picture? Where are we moving from here? How shall we strategize to remain faithful to the ecumenical commitment?

If we ask any diaconal organization in Eastern or Central Europe what its major problem is, the answer would be "resources".

1. The issue of sharing of resources, mainly across borders, emerged on the ecumenical agenda long before Bratislava. In early 1990s, Third World countries complained that Eastern and Central Europe were attracting too many resources. Nowadays it is no longer so, because of:

• first, a general decline in financial resources for diaconia
• second, changes of priorities geographically and thematically
• third, the channeling of resources: the ecumenical instruments for resource sharing, actively created and promoted in Eastern and Central European diaconia in early 1990s, in no way replaced the existing strong (sometimes traditional) bilateral links. At the moment, it is not possible to get a comprehensive overview, but it is clear that we can speak of a high percentage of resources channeled directly between churches or agencies within bilateral partnerships.

How can we evaluate these developments? Is there anything we would like to change about them?