What? a Friday Post arriving the following Tuesday? I’m sorry if I’ve thrown the cosmic calendar out of whack. All I can say is that recovering from surgery (which is going very well, thank you) seems to have thrown me out of whack.
God and the angels willing, this week’s Post will arrive this Friday as usual… or perhaps the following Friday. We shall see.
__________________________________________________
We in America, as well as many people in the world, live in societies where in one way or another government is elected by the people. According to the American Declaration of Independence, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
How can the Orthodox Church possibly relate to that? Because the Orthodox Church is a “peoples’ Church”.
We’ll take most of this Post getting that point established.
A Peoples’ Church? really?
…because at first glance, maybe even the second and third, the Orthodox Church certainly does not look like anything of the sort. We have a hierarchy – bishops and metropolitans and archbishops and patriarchs who dress like Byzantine potentates. * Our people do not elect our bishops – though in some cases like my own Antiochian Archdiocese, laypeople and clergy do vote to nominate bishops, then councils of bishops take it from there. Also parishioners normally elect their local parish councils.
- They do issue directives about various things from time to time, but in reality most of our bishops are chiefly wise compassionate pastors, and I wish they would dress like the shepherds they are.
Furthermore, till modern times most Orthodox have had no experience living in democratic societies.
A few American Orthodox are so distressed by the evils of the representative nature of our government and the evils of secular society that they prefer autocratic Orthodox Russia, and some have moved there! Did you know: the Russian government has set up a village for American Orthodox who wish to live in Holy Mother Russia * – where, by the way, thirty-three years after the fall of Communism and the restoration of Russian Orthodoxy, the abortion rate in Russia remains by far the highest of any country in the world. (The preceding was intended to be a snide comment. I’ll save my usual complaints about the invasion of Ukraine for a later time.)
- https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2023/08/22/orthodox-priest-jan-6-participant-supports-russian-government-scheme-enticing-conservatives
A few other American Orthodox look back to Byzantium as the ideal society, with bishops appointed by autocratic emperors – some faithful ones like Theodosios the Great and Justinian, but others like Julian and the Iconoclastic emperors who did their best to destroy the Church. The ideal system? I don’t think so.
A Peoples’ Church: Some Theology
The reason the Orthodox Church survived all that autocracy is that ultimately authority here does not belong to emperors, not to autocrats. Not even to our many present-day faithful bishops, because they do not rule like monarchs, or like the Pope, or even like a Protestant national Convention.
Soon after I became Orthodox I realized things functioned differently here. Sometimes when our Metropolitan issued a firm directive about something, everybody obeyed. Sometimes when he issued an equally firm directive, most people ignored it. What was going on? I talked about this with His Grace Bishop Basil one day: In the Orthodox Church, authority functions in a kind of dialectic way. (Is that the right word?) Hierarchs’ responsibility is to issue directives as they see fit. The peoples’ responsibility is to test and judge those directives. How do they work out in parish life? Sometimes the people accept them; sometimes they don’t. Orthodoxy is a peoples’ Church – where ultimate authority belongs to the people. Or to be more accurate, authority belongs to the Holy Spirit of God, acting through the people of the Church. The first Pentecost sermon quoted the prophet Joel: “And it shall be in the last days, God says, that I will pour-out from My Spirit upon all flesh.” Acts 2:17 And so it has been.
This makes for a very “messy” system, shall we say? Let’s make some contrasts: Who are the guardians of the Roman Catholic Faith and practice? The Pope and the Curia, who speak with absolute authority. For example, when the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin was promulgated in 1954, that was that. No back-talk, please.
Who proclaim the Christian faith among Protestants? Sometimes it’s the local pastors who determine it. Among more organized denominations, it’s usually a national convention or conference of lay and clergy who have authority to alter doctrine and worship. Some years ago in many denominations, forms of worship were sufficiently altered so as to leave lay peoples’ heads spinning. At one national Convention of the Episcopal Church, a vote was taken regarding whether the Filioque should be removed from the Creed. After about a fifteen minute discussion, it was decided to leave it in… this matter which theologians have debated and argued over for more than a millenium, decided by a quarter hour discussion and a vote! I was there. That left my head spinning.
Here’s how Faith and practice were traditionally determined in the Church. Take the ancient Ecumenical Councils: How was it decided whether Councils were Ecumenical? Not only because of the Bishops’ decisions. They had to be accepted by the “ecumene” – οἰκουμένη, the Church as a whole. It took a while for the First Ecumenical Council to be known as ecumenical, chiefly because Arius and his gang did not accept it, even though his belief seemed clearly contrary to the Scriptures. Eventually the Arian heresy died away, and there could be no doubt about the ecumenicity of the First Council.
There was one major council whose bishops thought they were ecumenical, but their decisions were never accepted by the Church – the “Robber Council” of 449.
That’s how it still works in the Orthodox Church. We say this often: “Who are the guardians of the Faith?” “The Orthodox people are.”
Stores and Examples to illustrate the point
This will be more interesting.
1) This is one of my favorites. Some years back the Church of England was consecrating as bishop a man who had publicly denied the Virgin Birth and the bodily Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and a few other things. There were protests from some members of the C of E, to no avail. The consecration proceeded in Yorkminster. (In the early hours of the following Monday morning, lightning struck the Minster, and the roof of the South Transept was consumed in flames.)
At that time a member of the Church of England was hosting an Orthodox visitor from somewhere in eastern Europe. He asked the Orthodox man, “What would happen in your country if a bishop denied the Resurrection?” wondering what sort of ecclesiastical system the Orthodox Church has to deal with heresy. The Orthodox man replied, “In my country, if a bishop denied the Resurrection, the people would take him and throw him in the river!” Of course, the people could call on their Archbishop or Metrpolitan to deal with the problem. In more sedate America, that might be the more likely solution. In any event, it would be dealt with.
In fact, I have never heard of an Orthodox bishop (or priest, for that matter) denying any article of the Faith, and this no doubt is the reason why: In the long service preceding his consecration, an Orthodox “Bishop-Elect opens the Holy Gospel and reads a document containing his Confession of Faith. He at first professes the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed, then receives the blessing of his Consecrating Bishops. He returns again to the Solea where he continues his profession of faith by promising to adhere to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and to honor and in no way alter neither dogmas nor traditions, but adhere to them and teach them to his divinely chosen flock.” (This succinct description is provided by the American Carpatho-Russian Archdiocese.)
2 Do you know the story of Saint Mark of Ephesus?
Mark was born in the city of Eugenikos. In the year 1436, he was one of the Bishops sent by the Emperor John Paleologos to the Synod of Ferrara-Florence in Italy, for the purpose of uniting the Orthodox Church with the Roman Catholic Church. The Emperor’s motives were more than ecclesiastical. The Empire was being pressed ever harder by the Turks, and he wanted military help from the West. He thought union with the Papacy might accomplish this. Mark began with a conciliatory attitude towards the Latins, but it soon became clear that they would not compromise in any way, even in minor matters. Under pressure from the Emperor, his fellow Orthodox bishops yielded, and against their conscience agreed to such things as Papal supremacy, the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory and the addition of the Filioque to the Creed. and signed the agreement of union. Mark alone stood firm and refused to sign. When the Pope discovered this, he remarked, “Well, we have accomplished nothing”.
What happened when the Orthodox bishops returned home? As a bishop Joseph of Methonis described it, “Mark of Ephesus saw the multitudes praising him for not signing and the crowd kneeled before him as if he were like Moses and Aaron, praising him and calling him a saint. The simple people of God looked at St. Mark as the lone hierarch who had the courage and capability to protect his Orthodox faith.”
It was the people of the Church who took the initiative in honoring Mark and rejecting the Council of Florence.
The Emperor was not pleased. Mark was in prison for a time. “After he was released…he was received by the faithful people with honor as a saint and confessor.” And so he is. His veneration spread slowly through the Church. Eventually Mark of Ephesus was declared a saint in 1734 by Patriarch Seraphim of Constantinople.
3 That brings up the subject of how saints are recognized as saints in the Orthodox Church. The people do it.
In the Roman Catholic Church there is a formal top-down procedure. The canonization process has three stages: 1) The candidate’s life is formally examined by a tribunal, which requires witnesses and documents. 2) Beatification. The candidate must have produced a verified miracle, after which he or she is given the title “Blessed”. 3) Canonization. A second verified miracle must be attributed, after which the candidate is officially canonized, after which the candidate is declared a “Saint”, and his or her intercession may be asked publicly.
In some contemporary Protestant/Anglican churches, liturgical commissions determine that certain people are worthy to add to the church calendar. Top-down, simple as that. No talk of miracles or widespread popular veneration.
In the Orthodox Church “canonization” begins with the people of the Church who venerated certain persons during their lifetime, asking their prayers, and continue to do so after they have departed. There may or may not be miracles attributed to the holy one. It’s the persons’ veneration by the people that matters. If it continues and spreads, then finally our hierarchs catch on, and a patriarch or metropolitan officially recognizes their sanctity, and they are added to the Church calendar. It’s a “bottom up” process from the people of the Church.
4 Or consider this: You Orthodox, how many times has your priest told you that you must be in church on Sunday or a holy day, and if you’re not it’s a mortal sin. The answer, of course, is: Zero. Actually there is an ancient Canon 881.1 which states: “The Christian faithful are bound by obligation to participate on Sundays and feast days in the Divine Liturgy”. Roman Catholic clergy, from the Pope down to the local parish priest, quote this, and their calendar lists “days of obligation” for the year 2024. These are imposed on laypeople by the hierarchy. But that’s not how Orthodox approach worship. We believe people should choose for themselves out of their own conscience, their own heart, to come to church. They should want to be in church because they know they need worship, the Holy Eucharist and fellowship with each other. Worship in Orthodoxy is peoples’ choice.
5) I can’t find the right word for this, but have you noticed how “comfortable”, “at ease”, “at home” Orthodox people are in church? Worshipers move about during the service. Parents take their children up the side aisles to look at and the kiss the icons. Those from cultures where people are normally late for family events unfortunately take the same approach to Divine Liturgy, because church is a family gathering, not an obligation. In Greece I once saw a man fighting his way through a slow-moving Little Entrance procession – in order to get up front and light a candle! When our little Orthodox mission first began, I noticed that after receiving the Eucharist, many people, even new converts, would stop and give our oldest member a kiss or say a few words with her, and then sometimes with others. One of our Greek guys would give Hershey’s kisses to the children! That would have been unseemly, scandalous, at my former Episcopalian church – but in the Orthodox Liturgy it just felt natural.
After all, the Divine Liturgy is not a business meeting – it is a family affair. Someone described Orthodox Liturgy as “people at home in heaven”. Yes, the clergy are all dressed up, and they do most of the talking – but at heart the Liturgy belongs to the people.
6 I just thought of another obvious example: In Western Christianity, how are pastors usually addressed? Bishop O’Malley, Pastor Miller, and so on. How are pastors addressed in the Orthodox Church? Father John, Bishop Anthony – by their first names, just like Grandpa Fred, Uncle John, Aunt Mary. Orthodoxy is not a business organization. Orthodoxy is family. Orthodoxy is people.
The Orthodox Church in a democratic society
I’ve been thinking about this for over a week, and I’ve come up with only a few disjointed thoughts, offered in no particular order. If you have reactions or further thoughts, I’d really appreciate it if you’d share them in the Comments below.
Despite our reputation and history, I think Orthodoxy, as a “peoples’ Church”, fits better with a democratic “peoples’ society” than it does with an autocratic one. Therefore I think we should oppose any attempt to turn American government into an autocracy.
The Holy Spirit works in the Church for the salvation of the world. But is God’s Holy Spirit absent from the rest of the world? Is He not present in all people? and everywhere there is goodness, truth, beauty, wisdom, kindness, love and true freedom? The Spirit works through all people to establish these godly values.
American society is shaky today. Besides the attempt to turn America into an autocracy, Christianity is shrinking fast: Traditionally authoritarian churches are losing their authority. Traditional “peoples’ churches” are progressively voting themselves ever further away from traditional Christianity. In both cases and even worse, they have lost their grasp on traditional Christian worship. (Visit a Protestant or Roman Catholic church sometime and see what they have lost.)
In the midst of this, the Orthodox Church remains a stable “peoples’ Church”. This is why we are now attracting many intelligent, devout, clear-headed people to the Church – especially young people.
What can Orthodoxy contribute to American society as a whole? how could we do it? we who comprise only 0.5% of the population of the USA.
Next Week: “Truth, Hope, Decency”
Thank you for the approbation.