Arabic original here.
Towards Elaborating an Orthodox Position toward What is
Happening (I)
What I am presenting is observations and questions, nothing
more. The children of the Greek Orthodox faith stand before a challenge. It is
not possible for them to be isolated from what is happening. They cannot but be
affected and suffer. They have their witness, amidst the suffering, which they
draw from their faith in the Lord Jesus, their faithfulness to him, and their
embrace of those who participate with them in the reality of the one nation.
With this in mind, I’ll say that I read in the newspaper
an-Nahar last Monday June 25, 2012, in the local section, an article written by
Pierre Atallah. I read it more than once. The article is exposition and
commentary. It presents the position expressed by His Beatitude Patriarch
Ignatius IV Hazim, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, for
the second time in about a year, that “the Church of Antioch’s position
regarding [current] events is expressed exclusively by the patriarch and was
defined by the Holy Synod at its meeting that was held in Lebanon last year.”
This was the exposition. As for the commentary, the writer of the article
transmits two commentaries. One of them
from someone described as a lay official with close connections to the
institution of the Church. The other is from someone who is said to be an
Orthodox Syrian activist, one of the supporters of the Syrian opposition. The
lay official states—in his words—“ Patriarch Hazim’s position is the historical
political position of the Church that is careful to have the best relations
with changing rulers and to not conspire against them but at the same time to
not stand as an impediment against the movement of peoples and change.” He
continues, saying that the Church condemns “oppression and violence and does
not intervene in politics except when they oppose morals and values.” He closes
by pointing out that “the one who speaks for the Church is the Holy Synod” and
that “any position aside from this… “is a personal opinion and the one
expressing it alone bears full responsibility for it.”
Additionally, the official expresses the discontent of “the
institution of the Church”—an expression he uses twice—with the description of
Syria’s Christians as “minorities”, rather emphasizing that they are citizens
“who interact with their environment and their people.”
As for the Orthodox activist, it drew my attention, without
going into details, his explanation “the Church as a whole does not want the
bishops [pointing out the particular position of one of them] to be tied to any
particular political situation, realizing the critical and sensitive nature of
the Syrian situation. This is the reason for it keeps the best relations with
the Muslims [it appears that he means the Sunni numerical majority].” In light
of this fact, the activist affirms something very important, that “the majority
of Christians in Syria seek a life in security, quiet, and peace with all
components of the Syrian people without any discrimination.”
The sentiment hidden behind what both the “lay official” and
the “Orthodox activist” express is without a doubt striking. The expectation is
for a position in which the Orthodox—and Christians in general—interact with
each element of the people without discrimination. But how are these positions
embodied? The verbal formula by which this position is expressed is ambiguous,
and thus impractical.
In my opinion, two things are clear: the first is that the
majority of Greek Orthodox, even if in their deepest convictions they desired
neutrality and sought to live in security, calm, and peace with all elements of
the people, it is impossible for them, amidst the current conflict, to realize
this. Even if we assumed for the sake of argument that they do not desire to
take a political position, others will drag them against their will into what
they do not want, or else they will consider them enemies. Secondly, the
positions of the lay official and the Orthodox activist are academic and of no
use on the ground. Perhaps they include intellectually correct elements, but it
has a difficult ring in others’ ears, not to say hostile!
What do I mean?
It is absolutely true that the government is changing and
that the people are moving. However, in the background of the current reality, does
your statement not imply that there is no problem for you if the Syrian
opposition succeeds in undermining the currently extant regime? Do you not
think that if you held such an intent and reveal it, even implicitly, as a wink
at the other side, then dealing with you will be under the assumption that you
are an enemy of--or even a conspirator against—the current regime?! Then what
chance remains for you after this, for having the best possible relationship to
the government?!
From another perspective, in your weighing between the
government and the people, do you not think (once more in the context the
current situation) that your declaration that you do not stand “as an
impediment to the movement of the people and change” means that you consider
the Syrian opposition to be the people and that you lend it “the Church’s”
legitimacy in its effort to strike down the existing political regime?! In this
case, have you not turned a blind eye to the entrenched sectarian aspect of the
crisis, and to the fact that the current spectacle is not only the spectacle of
a local political conflict, but also the spectacle of a fierce regional and
international conflict?! Do you think that this position of yours will result
in good or disaster for the presence of Christians in these parts?!
I do not wish to go into the matter of the Church condemning
oppression and violence. This is, in principle, true and self-evident, there’s
no debate about it. My question is just, in the context of what is going on,
whether oppression and violence is the language of all those fighting, even to
varying degrees and in distinct ways? Is there, in the struggle of killers and
those being killed, those who stand among the sheep and those who stand among
the wolves? Is there, in any sense, “clean” violence in this world? Do we not
agree with the words of the Lord, “he who lives by the sword dies by the
sword”? Is not the only “clean” violence that we know in this world is for us
to accept being persecuted and even to be killed as a testimony to God’s
truth? Apart from this, all violence is
oppressive and tainted with sin for us!
Likewise saying that the Church does not enter into politics
except when they oppose values and morals. This is a complicated topic. It is
sufficient for me to say that we are no longer in a Christian world. The morals
and values among us are not all the same. Even Christians have come to have
various approaches, no longer having a single approach, to the issue of morals
and values in politics. So who made us a watchtower and authorized us to
intervene? These are words spoken into the wind! Perhaps here or there we can
protest about an issue that is absolutely clear. But politics, realistically,
are immersed in sharp moral and ethical difficulties, and the Church has no
place in them and no say! The kingdom of Christ is not of this world even if we
strive to bear witness to it in this world. When two brothers came to the Lord
Jesus and asked him, “Tell my brother to share the inheritance with me,” what
was the response? “Who made me judge over you?” Not once did the Lord Jesus
have a political position, in the political sense, despite the suffering of the
Hebrew people during the time of Roman colonialism. Even when the Lord Christ
described Herod as a “fox”, it was not a position about it as a ruler, but
rather a description of his reality as a person!
As for considering His Beatitude the Patriarch, as delegated
by the Holy Synod, the exclusive spokesman for the position of the Orthodox
Church, is to prevent the spread of a chaos of private opinions that claim to
speak in the name of the Orthodox as a community. This is in order to preserve
the well-being of the children of the faith and their unity in the Church and to
raise their witness to love in the nation. It goes without saying that the
Church’s position in this situation is inspired by true, living faith and rises
above—and encourages us to rise above—political and sectarian divisions. Hence
the Church’s position regarding current conflicts is not a political position
in the way that others have political positions. The Orthodox as individuals
can naturally adopt political positions, if they so desire, which express their
witness to Christ and their Church and I have nothing to say about this. We are
a Church community and not a pagan tribe! As for the Church as a church, it has
no political position. The Church does not deal with political positions.
Political positions divide, while the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Holy
Synod, bishops and patriarch in the name of the Synod, is from above and is to
gather together and unify. It is the symbol of the unity of faith in Christ in
Antioch. It is normal for a bishop of the Church, as a person, to prefer one
political ideology over others, but he should realize, as a man of God, within
himself, political thought is one thing and political practice is something
else. For this reason, he should be careful to avoid speaking for any political
orientation, whatever it may be, whether on the level of thought—lest he be
misunderstood and made to say something other than what he says—or on the level
of practice—lest he be found to be a cause of division. The Church deals with
people regardless of their political positions. Indeed, the Church
distinguishes between people and their positions. She engages them in any
situation and does not necessarily engage their positions. This is contrary to
the common practice that equates positions to those holding them. In the next
essay, God permitting, I will deal with the issue of this distinction and its
importance.
Archimandrite Touma (Bitar)
Abbot of the Monastery of Saint Silouan the Athonite—Douma
1 July, 2012
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment