Your Eminences, Fathers, Professors, Sisters and Brothers,
I bring cordial greetings to you with
full awareness of more than two millennia of intellectual spiritual and
commercial exchanges between Greece and my country. As I put the words,
“Synod” and “Democracy” in the title of my brief presentation, I know
that these words and concepts originated in ancient Greek culture, both
Christian and pre-Christian.
At the outset I wish to recall to memory
the blessed visit in 2000 AD of H.A.H. Bartholomew, the Ecumenical
Patriarch along with H E Damaskinos of blessed memory to our church in
India, namely, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, that faithfully holds
the tradition of St Thomas the apostle. Their visit was to promote the
well-known dialogue between the Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox
families of churches. As you are aware the unofficial dialogue started
in 1964 with the initiative of Prof. Nikos Nissiotis, then director of
Bossey Ecumenical institute, Fr Paul Verghese (Later Metropolitan Paulos
Mar Gregorios) from the Malankara Orthodox Church, then Associate
General Secretary of the WCC and the Faith and Order Commission. This
dialogue was taken at the official level in 1985 onwards, in meetings
that took place in Chambesy, Geneva and Abba Bishoy Monastery of the
Coptic Church in Egypt. Both the unofficial and official dialogues
resolved the Christological dispute and came to the conclusion that both
families of churches hold the same Apostolic faith, though linguistic,
terminological and cultural issues in the 5th century exacerbated the
Christological issue, and divided them. In a meeting in Chambesy,
Geneva, follow up steps were suggested by the joint commission in order
to bring the two families to full Eucharistic communion.
I have mentioned this in order to
illustrate that the principle of Synodality (conciliarity) is central to
Orthodox Ecclesiology. Although it may have phases of waxing and
waning, it may reassert itself in spite of the time lapse of 1500 years,
that is, between the council of Chalcedon in fifth century and the 20th
century.
Let me say at the very beginning that I
take the word synod in its etymological sense of “taking the way
together” or travelling together (syn+hodos) because it provides a
beautiful and tangible image to anyone in any cultural setting. I do not
wish here to go into the technical meaning the word Synod has acquired
in several churches, where it is a formal assembly of Bishops to
transact official agenda. But In my ancient apostolic Malankara church
in India today whenever we use the word synod for the meeting of bishops
we qualify it with the adjective “episcopal”, because in our earlier
tradition a synod meant a representative assembly of the whole church –
laypersons and priests together with the bishops. This assembly is still
the highest decision making body. Since lay representatives from
parishes are proportional to the number of parish members, the majority
in the assembly are lay people. They meet every five years, elect the
regular governing bodies, and when necessary, elect the bishops and the
Catholicos, and make necessary amendments in the constitution of the
Malankara church. Every member weather lay, priest or bishop has only
one vote.
The Oriental Orthodox Churches of
Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean and Indian traditions
conventionally acknowledge the three ecumenical councils of Nicaea,
Constantinople and Ephesus. But in the light of the 20th century
dialogue they would recognize Chalcedon and the rest on the basis of the
Orthodox interpretation of those councils. The point is that though
these oriental churches did not convene a common council after Ephesus
they remained in the same apostolic faith in Christ and the Sacramental
communion. So some theologians have raised a question whether an
Ecumenical council is essential for the maintenance of the same faith
and Eucharistic communion. But we know from our experience that in our
contemporary world our faithful in both native countries and the
diaspora face a great many questions of theological, ethical, pastoral,
canonical and spiritual nature. Therefore, convening of a council like
the Holy and Great council certainly is the need of the times.
Unlike in earlier ages when authority
structures were very clear in church and society, our present world
lives in conditions of confusion and uncertainty. On the one hand
Emphasis on Individual freedom in a liberal democracy, and on the other
hand great restrictions on individual freedom in theocratic societies
and dictatorial regimes with fascist tendencies are both existing in our
contemporary world. Secularism and irreligion coexist with religious
fundamentalist and radicalist tendencies. In between such extremities
the members of the church are seeking counsel and guidance.
We may identify at least a few
Christological, Pneumatological and Trinitarian principles that underlie
the practice of synodality in the Church.
1.
The Pneumatological-Inspirational Dimension. The first Christian
community arising from the Pentecost experience of the Holy Spirit in
Jerusalem as described in the Acts of the Apostles relied on the power
and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Their mode of life as a Spirit inspired
Christian fellowship set the model for the later Church. Examples like
the election of Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot (1:12-26), the
election of «seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and
wisdom» to minister as deacons (6:1-15) and the very first meeting of
the synod of the Church. In the first Synod of Jerusalem, «the Apostles
and elders, with the whole Church, decided.» (15:22) on crucial issues
like circumcision, food taboos etc. The celebrated phrase «it seemed
good to the Holy Spirit and to us» (15:28) became the fundamental
principle of synodality in the Church. The experience of a genuine
brotherliness and sisterliness in Christ and the consultative mode of
church governance guided by the Holy Spirit constitute the synodal
character of the Church. The way of life of the early church was
synodical at its best. Whether it was a matter of election to a
responsible position or urgent ethical-legal issues affecting the
community there was a great effort to promote consensus among the
members of the church and dependence on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
2. The Christological-Anthropological
Dimension. The New Testament vision of the fullness of the human person
and of the human community is expressed in the image of Christ as the
head and the Church as the body. The person of Christ, who dynamically
unites the divine and the human, redeems humanity to his own fullness in
the process of Theosis. The Church as the body of Christ stands for the
human community and by extension all created reality that can
experience God’s salvation in Christ. The person and the world at large
as envisaged here are to be participants in God’s compassionate love and
the saving process. Therefore, an appropriate Christological approach
to anthropology and cosmology has to be evolved from the image of the
Church as the Body of Christ. When the apostle Paul envisages that the
individuals and the whole Church can grow to the full measure of the
stature of Christ (Eph. 4:13) he means that humanity and all creation
can aspire to grow into the infinite dimension of the Word incarnate.
This is a never ending process of ascent, as in the ever continuing
anabasis of Moses climbing the holy mountain of Sinai to experience the
presence of God in thick darkness, a biblical image so dear to the
Cappadocian fathers. We can also take other biblical images like the
banquet of the kingdom, where people from East and West, from North and
South take part, and we will get a glimpse of synodality in its broadest
sense. Thus synodality is an expression of the ultimate Koinonia in and
through Christ.
3. The Trinitarian-Holistic Dimension.
The perichoretic unity in Trinity has always helped the Orthodox
tradition to conceive its ecclesial structures. Here is a source of
authority that negates all false hierarchies, and worldly human goals.
Since there is no hierarchy in the Trinity in our worldly sense of order
and number, as taught to us by the holy fathers like St Basil of
Caesaria and St Gregory the Theologian, a genuine reflection of divine
perichoresis in the Church would help us visualise the world in
radically different ways. Our Lord Jesus very clearly draws a contrast
between the mode of authority as exercised by rulers in this world and
and the mode of authority exercised by the Christian Church. «You know
that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and those who are
great exercise authority over them.» He is emphatic when he says to the
disciples: «Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to
become great among you, let him be your servant… Just as the Son of Man
did not come to be served but to serve, and give his life a ransom for
many» (Matt. 20:25-28). This is radically subversive in the sense that
he turns upside down our sense of hierarchy and the order of our
perceived reality. The values of the kingdom of God are clearly
distinguished from the norms of the order of the world. Jesus literally
exemplified this when he washed the feet of his own disciples.
Long before parliamentary democracy
became an acceptable mode of governance in modern states, the Church led
the way to practice its fundamental principles. Modern democracy,
probably through biblical inspiration, took over some of these Christian
elements. For example, in the British democratic system followed in the
former British colonies, the bureaucrats are called civil servants or
servants of the people. A minister in government is literally one who
serves or a servant. Paradoxically the kind of privileges and positions
enjoyed by these bureaucrats and ministers may not have anything to do
with the life of a servant or the committed service of anyone who is
inspired by the message of Christ.
Democracy loses its quality and power
whenever the process of consultation and consensus is weakened. In big
democracies like India elections are the decisive expression of the will
of the people and the convergence of public opinion. In small
communities there may be chances of direct debate and the effort to
reach consensus. But elections, however well they are conducted, do not
fully represent the public opinion in all its different shades. There is
also the danger that they can be manipulated by big money and political
power and intrigues. Parliamentary democracy, like in my country,
projects a secular state in its constitution. Therefore, even if all the
citizens of a country follow some religion or other, the secular state
and its governance are supposed to take a distance from favoring any
religion or promote the doctrines of one religion. In other words, a
democratic system is not required to have any reference to a
transcendent reality.
An Indian Buddhist Ruler. In the
classical tradition of India one comes across a great ruler called
Ashoka (ca. 268-239 BCE) who became the emperor of a large part of India
some 500 years before Constantine became the Roman emperor. He accepted
the Buddhist way of life and became a conscientious follower of the
Buddha who had lived 300 years before him. Like Constantine who accepted
the Christian faith and became its defender some 300 years after the
Incarnate life of Jesus Christ, Ashoka became the defender of Buddhism,
and sent out missionaries to Asian countries and to as far as the
Mediterranean coast. He laid down all weapons after witnessing a bloody
war with a neighbouring kingdom, became a great pacifist, embraced
Ahimsa or nonviolence, and erected pillars and rock edicts throughout
India urging the people to practise compassion to all creatures, care
for the common good and toleration and harmony among various
competing religions.
Asoka’s period illustrated «what the
ruler and the ruled owed to one another,» as phrased in a recent article
by Rajeev Bhargava, a political theorist in Delhi. (The Hindu, March 4,
2018). The Indian equivalent of emperor is Chakravarti. The Sanskrit
word means “one who turns the wheel”. The chakra or wheel is that of
Dharma ( Dhamma in Pali language), that is, law inspired by morality.
Buddha turned the wheel of Dharma in religio- philosophical and the
ethical spheres. You can still see in the state emblem of India a wheel
adapted from an extant stone sculpture, with Ashoka’s edicts, erected in
Sarnath in 250 BCE, (near the city of Benares), where Buddha preached
his first sermon. Bhargava says that the turning of the wheel is a
radical restructuring of the world in accordance with a politico-moral
vision. The King initiates political and administrative measures
inspired by public morality with the goal of justice, peace and
prosperity to his subjects. Conquest of other kingdoms not by physical
force but by the moral appeal of Dharma. The Pillar Edict 7 shows that
compliance to dharma must arise largely from nijjihattiya (persuasion),
not only from niyama (legislation). The people have to internalize
dharma because it is good, not merely because the ruler so commands.
Pillar Edict 6 speaks about the welfare and happiness of all living
beings in this world and hereafter in heaven. The Buddha sent the
missionaries on a totally peaceful mission. The principle was the
welfare and happiness of all people (bahujanahitaya, bahujanasukhaya).
The king or ruler is not above dharma
but is subject to the collective moral order that all people have to
follow. The king is not just a ruler but the leader, a teacher, a
father, a healer and a moral exemplar. These principles practiced by the
Emperor Ashoka are relevant in modern democracy and its ideals of
justice, tolerance, freedom, equality and civic friendship. «the
Chakravarti tradition remains a valuable resource for our democratic
republic» (Bhargava).
Social Media: the second decade of the
21st century is marked by the pervasive use and influence of social
media -Facebook and Whatsapp, Twitter and Instagram…., in addition to
the hundreds of TV channels and the traditional print media. Since we
are in the thick of it as a totally new phenomenon we are unable to make
a thorough judgement from within. In a political democratic system the
role played by the social media is still being hotly debated.
There are positive and negative elements. Some of the positive features are:
*Unlike the print media and the TV
channels, the social media provides an instant opportunity to debate or
respond to an issue. *Participation of the people in a debate on common
political and social interest can be maximised, provided all people can
make use of the social media and there is complete connectivity. *All
social hierarchies are abolished, and everyone irrespective of one’s
position, age, religion, gender, nationality, location and profession
can take part and voice one’s opinion in any issue. *A literally global
discussion of any matter is possible since the net is literally
worldwide. *The voters can directly interact with their elected
representatives to bring their issues to the Parliament or
Constitutional assembly. *The people can challenge their political
leaders individually and collectively without fear of physical
suppression or retaliation. *Mass movements for social and political
change that once required a bloody political revolution can be organised
on the Internet in a possibly nonviolent manner.
These are some of the very important
positive features that underscore the social media. In a way they are
embedded as fundamental principles in the notion of democracy from the
very beginning from ancient Greece to contemporary India.
The negative elements are now clear to
all users of social media. *Generating and spreading fake news continues
to haunt democratic governments in many countries. This is particularly
venomous in times of election. *The enormous rubbish of words and
images wantonly thrown on the net through social media does not build up
society nor promote democracy in a creative way but undermines many of
humanity’s venerable principles. *Human freedom in a democratic system
that goes along with responsibility, care for the other and the concern
for the common good is increasingly abused on the social media without
any control. *Evil forces of jealousy and vengeance can jeopardise great
educational and social causes. *The concept of Post-Truth itself arises
mainly from the negative use of social Media in relativising factual
truths and erasing all ethical norms in favour of political or financial
gain.
In a post dated January 22, 2018 Samid
Chakravarti, product manager of Facebook, discusses the effect of social
media on democracy. (Hard Questions: What Effect Does Social Media Have
on Democracy?). He frankly admits that the social media which was
heralded as the technology of liberation at the time of Arab Spring can
do damage even to a well functioning democracy. He laments that the
Facebook, originally designed to connect friends and family, is being
used in unforeseen ways with societal repercussions that were never
anticipated, because unprecedented numbers of people channel their
political energy through this medium. The use of social media as
information weapon for cyber war, forum for hate speech, hoaxes,
misinformation and disruption of social causes increasingly offsets its
positive features. The phenomenon social scientists call «confirmation
bias» is corrupting the value of social media since its users are drawn
to information that strengthens their preferred narratives and reject
information that undermines it.
Conclusion: It is interesting that we are
still confronting in a highly sophisticated technological way the old
dichotomy of good and evil. In the cyber world any good that is created
will instantly have its evil counterpart. Such is the ambiguity of human
creativity that every good and useful software will have to face an
equally or even more powerful and disruptive malware.
Now why did we speak about synodality in
the Christian Church along with democracy in the secular world and the
role of social media? The principles such as people’s participation,
consultation and consensus that are conceived sacramentally and
safeguarded liturgically and canonically in the body of Christ are used
in the secular democracy without any transcendent reference. We used to
say that the people, the body politic is the ultimate authority in a
parliamentary democracy. Now with the emergence of the Internet and the
social media this authentic principle is taken by many to crazy extremes
where there is no reference to any authority or care for the common
good. While the Church and the democratic state have built-in structures
that can moderate the extremes of lawlessness or misuse of freedom, it
is hardly possible in the present condition of social media. Well versed
in classical Greek philosophy and literature St Gregory of Nazianzus in
the fourth century called the body of that vast knowledge «bastard
letters» because their logos did not connect to the Logos of God the
Creator and Sustainer and the Redeemer of all that is. He wanted to take
up the mission of leading those letters to their authentic source. We
can probably use the same attribute used by that great and erudite
Theologian to qualify the mind-boggling technological advances in the
digital information universe. Now this places a very significant
responsibility on the Church the Body of Christ which is the community
of the Holy Spirit. The Church in faith and hope and love constantly
calls upon the perfecting Spirit of God to provide authentic meaning and
direction to the infinite potential of human creativity. The Church’s
own in-house practice of the apostolic tradition of synodality and the
style of life and governance that implies can set the standards for the
secular world and all human aspirations.