This article is translated from Majallat al-Nur 57.8 (December, 2019), 401-408. Alongside this article, it is also worth reading Rizk's reflections on the "Council" of Crete, as he had been designated one of Antioch's delegates to the council.
Are we before the
Spectacle of a Church Disintegrating?
It is a cry expressing
heartbreak leading to the loss of hope, if the Grace of God were not sufficient
and strength made perfect in weakness (1
Corinthians 12:9). This heartbreak comes from the current schisms in our Orthodox
Church and the great distance of her behavior from the image her theology wishes
to project, of being the Early Church.
After examining the
characteristics of the early Christian community and the deviations to which it
has been subjected, past and present, we can examine the problems that are tearing
our Church apart today and what awaits her in the future.
The Early Community
Christians were called
in particular “saints” and “brothers” and their community was called the “brotherhood.”
How not, when Christians are equal brothers in the body of Christ, sharing
together in the building up of this body, each according to the gifts given to
him by the Spirit. The Apostle Paul distinguishes between the brothers he calls
episkopos (that is, overseer) and presbyteros (that is, elder)
and he relies on them in addition to the diakonos (that is, servant) for
taking care of the communities that the apostles founded. Most modern
translations of the New Testament use the terms “bishop” and “priest” to
indicate the episkopos and presbyteros under the influence of the
Church’s modern situations. In reality, the term “priest” is not found in the New
Testament except with reference to the priests of the Jews. It is also applied
to the Lord Jesus “the chief priest forever” (Hebrews 6:19) and to the
collective priesthood of believers in the expressions “the royal priesthood” (1
Peter 2:9) and “kings and priests” (Revelation 1:6 and 5:10). The apostolic
communities gathered around the episkopos or presbyteros who led
the service of the Eucharist which the community of the faithful performed
along with him, according to its royal priesthood.
The Apostle Paul
believes that the responsibility of the “overseer” lies in pastoring “the
Church of God” (Acts 20:28) and keeping watch over the unity of the people of
God, taking notice of the gifts of the children of God and reminding them “in
season and out of season” (2 Timothy 4:2) that in baptism they have obtained "an annointing from the Holy One" (1 John 2:20). As for the faithful, Paul urges them "to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 5:12) and to bear each other's burdens, forgive each other and, before all else, "
put on love, which is the bond of perfection" (Colossians 3:14).
put on love, which is the bond of perfection" (Colossians 3:14).
A Christian does not
Exist Alone, but rather Exists with his Brothers
A Christian loses the
characteristic of being a Christian if he departs from the communion of the
community of brothers. He realizes himself in his connection with the other--
any other—within and outside the community. His love for others leads him to
encounter God because “If we love one another, God
abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us” (1 John 4:12). For this
reason, Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) said, “In the Church, we tell each other,
‘I need you in order to be’… Therefore, members of the Church do not use ‘I’,
but ‘we’.”[1] We do not say in our prayers ‘Lord have mercy on me’, but rather ‘on
us.’ During the prayer of consecration, which is the apex of the Divine
Liturgy, the priest says: ‘We offer You this rational worship… and we ask, we
pray and we entreat You…’ Then, the people present who are participating in offering
the ‘Sacrifice of Praise’ confirm this prayer with their resounding amen.[2]
The Mystery of the Eucharist
When the faithful receive from the hand of
the bishop or from the priest delegated by him the precious Body and Blood of
the Lord, this mystery represents the mystery of the Church’s unity par
excellence. There is no real unity among Christians apart from that which
ensures Christ’s presence in each one of them, transforming them into true
brothers because the Lord “was honored to be their brother”[3] and makes from them His Church. Within this understanding, the bishop
is the elder brother, “first among equals” in the family of the Lord’s
brothers. Unfortunately, however, this Eucharistic understanding is not
generally experienced in our ecclesiastical communities. Most of the time, we
find in them understandings that divide them into two groups, clergy and laity,
and we hear in them talk of the “authority” of the clergy and the “rights” of
the laity. There is also a lot of talk of obedience, primacies and
prerogatives.
The Bishop: Beginnings and Deviations
When the Apostle Paul described the
characteristics and responsibility of the bishop, he was aware that this
responsibility would be subjected to deviations, since he says to the bishops, “ Therefore
take heed to yourselves and to all the flock… For I know this, that
after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also from among yourselves men will rise up,
speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves” (Acts
20:28-30). This prophecy came true time and again in the Church’s history, not
only because of the heresy of some bishops, but also on account of those who
put themselves above the people of God and treated them with the
authoritarianism of this world, determining their fate without referring to
them.
All authority in the Church is in order to
grow love in the community and to serve its unity. Otherwise, it turns into
authoritarianism. All obedience is obedience to Christ and thus to the faithful
brothers, including the bishop. Obedience is always reciprocal: I obey you
because I love you and I know that you are ready to obey me in the Lord. There
is no authority and no obedience in the Church apart from an atmosphere of
love, dialogue, mutual listening and loving attentiveness. Our fathers teach us
that the purpose of authority and obedience in the Church is nothing other than
holiness, the holiness of those who wield authority and the holiness of those
who obey. Whenever holiness weakens, authority inclines toward authoritarianism
and obedience to enslavement, and “the salt is corrupted.”
Some ecclesiastical texts that were
composed in the early centuries[4] describe gatherings of the early Christian community as family
gatherings. One of them presides and the equal brothers participate with him.
It seems that this situation started to change after the first persecutions,
since a greater focus on the bishop in ecclesiastical services is noticed then.
There is no doubt that this better helped to defend the faith, but it created “a
certain inflation
in the sacramental hierarchy and a disruption of the ecclesiastical balance.”[5] Then, unconsciously at first,
certain fissures started to appear, not at the level of theological vision but
in lived reality and the Church started to become more centralized around the
clergy and infused with legal concepts.
These
inclinations grew when the Church became the church of the empire and was
forced into a number of “compromises”. The following two texts clearly indicate
the change that occurred in the position of the bishop, in his consciousness of
himself, and his image in the eyes of the faithful.
We
read in the Didascalia, “If a poor man or woman should
come… and there be no place for them to sit, do thou, O bishop, with all thy
heart provide a place for them, even if thou have to sit upon the ground.”[6]
A similar passage in the Apostolic Constitutions says, “If a poor person
comes… and does not have a place to sit, let the deacon do all he is able to
find a place for him.”[7]
So we see, in the course of less than half a century, the
bishop being removed from personal
concern for the poor and his delegation of this responsibility to the deacon.
The bishop is no longer the first brother among equal brothers who gives an
example by serving the needy, but rather becomes one who does not “come down”
from his throne to help the poor. The Apostolic Constitutions were
composed after the empire’s conversion to Christianity, and the bishops had
grown accustomed to rubbing shoulders with patricians and grandees. It came to
be customary to call the bishop “master” despite the explicit request by Christ
Himself that no one on earth be called master because “your one Master is
Christ and you are all brothers…” (Matthew 23:8).
Other canonical texts[8]
show how the bishops gradually reduced the role of prophets, teachers, readers
and other forms of ecclesiastical service or delegated priests (who took the
place of elders) or deacons to undertake some of them. We see that service in
the Church is no longer the result of a divine gift that the bishop and the
community notice in one of its members, but rather accepting a designation by
the bishop alone.
Likewise the Apostolic
Constitutions say to the bishops: “You are to the laity prophets, rulers,
governors, and kings; the mediators between God and His faithful people, who
receive and declare His word, well acquainted with the Scriptures. You are the
voice of God, and witnesses of His will.”[9]
It also tells the laity that the bishop is “next after God, your earthly god who
has a right to be honored by you… let him preside over you as one honored with
the authority of God.”[10]
The bishop is very clearly no longer the “elder brother”, but the king and
master, who exclusively holds all gifts in his hands and the hands of the
clerical class who depend on him, which is likened to the Levitical priesthood[11]
in the Old Testament.
In the Apostolic
Constitutions there is another recommendation to the bishop which says, “Be
of one mind, O you bishops, one with another, and be at peace with one another;
sympathize with one another, love the brethren… that there may be no
schisms among you.”[12]
It seems that this recommendation has rarely been honored, given the wrangling and quarrels among bishops that have
been commonplace in the Church’s history.
As for the laity, although
they continue to be called in the Apostolic Constitutions “the chosen
Church of God… the holy and sacred Church of God, enrolled in heaven, a royal
priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, a bride adorned for the Lord God,”[13]
the Constitutions empty these expressions of their meaning and in
practice leave nothing to the laity apart from obedience. They ask them to not “do
anything without the bishop”[14]
and to provide his livelihood, “and the livelihood of those clergymen with him.”[15]
It is clear that “the
corruption of the salt” began in the second part of the third century and that
the church of the “empire” lost its semblance to the Early Church. The Early
Church was not of this world, but the church of the empire slid deep into this
world. This slide was accompanied by the reception of a large number of new converts
without sufficient preparation, which led to a weakening of the community’s
spiritual life. It was left to its best elements, the founders of monasticism,
to preserve the original way of life. We find in the Apostolic Constitutions
a certain amount of contradiction and confusion since it sometimes preserved
old standards and at other times adapts them to the changing situation.
The Holy Fathers
Many holy bishops,
monks and pious laypeople rose up against the laxity of Christian communities
and called for a return to the principles of the Gospel and various stages of
the Church’s history. We call them the Holy Fathers. The Orthodox are generally
happy to parrot their sayings, but without imitating their life. Their sayings
are many, but two of them will suffice us.
Saint Basil the Great
wrote in a letter to a bishop, “It is right for us bishops to cease and for the
churches to live in mutual concord, since we see how our silly and petty conflicts
harm the people of God.”[16]
The Blessed Augustine says to his lay flocks, “It scares me what I represent
for you, but I am put at ease by that in which I share with you. For you, I am
the bishop. But with you, I am a mere Christian. The title ‘bishop’ indicates a
responsibility that one bears. But the name ‘Christian’ is the name of the
grace granted to us all. We bishops are your servants and your companions at
the same time… We are your leaders and those led by you at the same time. We
stand at your forefront only if we contribute to your wellbeing. If the bishop
does not behave in this way, then he will not remain a bishop in reality, but
rather bears the name improperly.”[17]
Contemporary Fathers
The age of the fathers
has not ended and some of them still rise up against deviations, like the
growing state of clericalism, the unilateralism and authoritarian behavior of
bishops, and the Church’s use of the ways of the world in her activities.
Daniel Ciobotea (currently Patriarch of Romania) wrote, “The structure of the Church
must only be a structure of participation and service, since her chief purpose
is not establishing a regime in the legal sense of the term or even unity of an
administrative sort, but rather creating harmony in brotherly love and
consequently a participatory unity based on reciprocal self-sacrifice according
to the model of the reciprocal self-sacrifice of the hypostases of the Trinity.”[18]
He says of obedience, “We must be careful to remain obedient, on the condition
of bringing back the ecclesiastical sense of obedience, since it seems that
there are deviations in the prevailing understanding of it. The purpose of
obedience in the Church is never to preserve the system by eliminating
brotherly love or the personality of the ‘little ones.’ Obedience is not
elevating the one who commands and abasing the one who obeys, but rather for
the life of both parties to become self-sacrifice through liberating,
reciprocal service and joint responsibility for the edification of the Church.”[19]
In truth, Christian obedience is always reciprocal, as one of the Desert
Fathers said, “Obedience in return for obedience: for He who obeys God, God
obeys.”[20]
Anba Pimen drew attention to the fact that “he who leads must always be a model
and not a legislator.”[21]
Does the sight of what many of the leaders of our churches are doing constitute
a model?
The Painful Reality
Looking at our current
ecclesiastical reality objectively makes us consider the words of our fathers as
though they come from another world. Father Nikolai Afanasiev expressed this
painful reality when he said, “History introduced massive alterations into ecclesiastical
life and invented forms that differ radically from earlier forms, sowing
strange concepts.” He added, “We must struggle today to be rid of the forms to
which we have grown accustomed and return to the ancient forms that appear
strange to us.”[22]
This discourse is not
unique. Many of the people of God in our days are aware of the danger of where
we have arrived and the necessity of returning to the Church’s living tradition,
this tradition that has been drowned out by human traditions and historical
missteps into a whole set of prohibitions cast in a language that does not
speak to people. We have made human traditions, certain canons and typica—the interpretation
of which has been left to people’s whim—into holy degrees that generally take the
place of the decrees of the Gospel and the Apostles. Our Church practically
lives in the past and fears every new thing and change, even if it requires
returning to the sources. Many times it has become a museum whose treasures
have been covered by a great amount of dust.
What can be said at
the sight of the schisms of our churches and the disputes of their bishops over
the “rights” of sees or persons? The attachment of certain of our churches to their
racial affiliation surpasses their affiliation to Christ. Are we really
experiencing such blatant heresies and no one seems concerned?! Metropolitan
Georges (Khodr) once cried out, “This group that eats the Lord’s body eats away
at itself with hatred.” How right he was! What is there to do, then, when this “salt”
is corrupted?!
The Holy Spirit and
the Council
We cannot do anything
by ourselves. Only the Holy Spirit can prevent the salt from being corrupted
and bring back its original flavor. He alone gives life to the Son’s Church, if
the people of God refrain from imprisoning Him in the chains of their egotism.
This people must desire it, because the Holy Spirit is always ready. Our
problem is that we do not rely on Him who brings all newness, but rather on our
longstanding habits. Our point of reference is the system of “masters” that our
sins have brought us to!
No parish, diocese or independent
church remains the Church of Christ if it rejects the newness of the Spirit, closes
in on itself, takes pride in its achievements, and thinks that it is able to continue
to be this Church despite ignoring others. Although every bishop and every Eucharistic
community is rooted in a specific place, they are in communion with all the
other Eucharistic communities and bishops at the regional and global level.
This communion appears in the synod which includes the bishops of a specific
geographic region inasmuch as they represent their Eucharistic communities. It appears
at the global level in the ecumenical council. Each synod must have a “first
among equals” (primus inter pares) and not a “first without equals” (primus
sine paribus), as a newly-coined heresy claims.[23]
Contemporary Heresies
This and similar
heresies, especially that which pertains to racial affiliation, led to a break
in Eucharistic communion between two churches in 1996—for the first time in
modern Orthodox history, not for dogmatic reasons, but on account of an administrative
dispute over prerogatives and geographic boundaries in Estonia. This was not
resolved before another break in communion occurred in 2010, decided by the See
of Antioch with regard to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. This was also for an
administrative reason related to geographic boundaries. It is noteworthy that
this break in communion was limited to clergy, as though they represent a separate
body from the rest of the faithful! Despite several efforts, until now this
problem has not been resolved and it seems that the Orthodox world has
forgotten it or ignores it. Finally, the Church of Russia has broken Eucharistic
communion with the Church of Constantinople, also on account of an administrative
dispute about Ukraine. This break has been extended to the Church of Greece and
the Patriarchate of Alexandria, which have recognized the entity established by
the Ecumenical Patriarch in Ukraine. It is feared that the break will extend to
other “Greek” churches if they follow Constantinople’s example.
I have no intention of
delving into the reasons for these schisms and the responsibilities of all the
churches in them. They are a mix of canonical propriety, disputes about “prerogatives”[24]
of the heads of the churches and political reasons. If they indicate anything,
they indicate how absorbed our churches are in the mindset of the world, where
one imposes economic sanctions on anyone who disagrees. As for us,
unfortunately, we impose a prohibition from the Heavenly Provision, as though
we own it!
It is a sad situation
to be Orthodox today! It is unfortunate to observe that the affairs of the Church
are generally not conducted according to the mind of Christ, but rather are
completely removed from the love that is supposed to be the only “weapon”
available to those who believe in Him. Basil the Great wished that one of the
bishops would “cast off the idea that he does not need to be in communion with
another one. Because no one who lives in love or strives to keep the Law of Christ
can break communion with his brothers.”[25]
He wrote in another letter, sent to Athanasius the Great, “You must be attentive
that no schism occur between the churches… out of fear that the Orthodox people
divide into various parties and follow the leaders in their schisms. We must
make every effort for peace to prevail before all else.”[26]
Is anyone listening?!
Questions
We have the right to wonder
whether the leaders of some of our churches take seriously the “Law of Christ,”
of which Saint Basil speaks, or whether they consider their own interests and
centers of power to be more important. Do they really believe that the
Eucharist itself forms their church and the church of their brothers in faith
before they break communion?
The Council
All matters of dispute
must be examined in a council, as happened in the Byzantine period. There is,
however, no longer an emperor to call such a council. On the other hand, the
experience of the “council” of Crete was ineffective. The Orthodox Church today
is at a real impasse. We stand before two competing visions of the concept of
the Church: Constantinople emphasizes primacy “without equals” while others emphasize
equality between the churches. It is a fruitless debate for those who want to
be Christians who believe in unity in diversity. It seems that this quarrel
will go on in an atmosphere of mutual distrust and political interests, which
the leaders of the churches lack the boldness to resist. The schism will go on
as long as God wills, unless the other Orthodox churches decided to intervene
and “force” the rivals to agree to a council.
Orthodox Brotherhoods?
The Orthodox Church
has experienced analogous tragic situations in the past, where bishops
abandoned their responsibilities and left their flocks. One of these occasions occurred
in the 16th century, in a region that is mostly located in modern
Ukraine and Belarus. The Church was saved at that time through the activity of
brotherhoods that included monks and laypeople who mobilized to defend
Orthodoxy and were granted God’s help.
We ask the Holy Spirit
to inspire some of our bishops, monks, theologians and laypeople to such
activity. They must pray together without splitting into competing rival parties
and partake together in the Holy Things (despite the restrictions) in order to
create, with God’s help, awareness among the Orthodox that their Church is disintegrating
and that the time has come to turn the tables on those who traffic in holy
things, just as the time has come for us all to repent and prepare to affirm “the
joy that is in us” (1 Peter 3:15).
[1] In
the keynote address he gave at the recent conference of Orthodox theologians in
Romania.
[2] Basil
the Great says that the “amen” boomed in
his church like the sound of thunder.
[3]
Blessed Augustine, Sermon 25
[4]
Especially the Didache (early 2nd century) and the Tradition
of the Apostles (ca. 215) and the Didascalia Apostolorum (early
third century).
[5] Fr
Sergei Bulgakov, one of the great Orthodox theologians of the twentieth
century, in his book L'épouse de l'agneau (L’Age d’Homme), 214.
[6] In
Section 12.
[7]
The Apostolic Constitutions are a collection of Christian regulations
composed by a bishop in Northern Syria around the year 380. It relies in some
passages on the Didache and the Didascalia Apostolorum.
[8]
For example, the Clementine texts, which are pseudepigraphic texts composed in
the first part of the third century incorporating texts of a Judeo-Christian
character from the end of the second century.
[9]
Book II, 25.7
[10]
Book II, 26.4
[11]
Book II, 25.7
[12] Book
II, 44.2
[13]
Book II, 26.1
[14]
Book II, 26.1
[15]
Book II, 24.3
[16]
Letter 204.7
[17]
Sermon 22
[18]
In an article on the mystery of communion and freedom in a world marked by sin and limitedness, 1985.
[19] ibid.
[20]
From the Sayings of the Desert Fathers.
[21]
From the article by Ciobotea.
[22] L'Église
du Saint-Esprit (Cerf, 1974), 247.
[23]
The first to write about it was Elpidophoros, Archbishop of the Greek Church in
the United States, who is close to the current Ecumenical Patriarch.
[24]
No church leader has any prerogative apart from self-sacrifice, love and
service.
[25]
Letter 65
[26] Letter
69
Posts
