SCAFFOLDS
OF THE CHURCH: TOWARDS
POSTSTRUCTURAL
ECCLESIOLOGY. BY CYRIL HOVORUN. EUGENE, OR: CASCADE BOOKS, 2017. XII, 262 PP.; ISBN 9781498284202
(PBK.); 26.00 GBP.
DOI:
10.29357/ISSN.2521-179X.2018.20.29
In this new book
archimandrite Cyril Hovorun, professor at Loyola Marymount University (Los
Angeles, USA), continues ecclesiological studies begun in Meta-
Ecclesiology.[1] His earlier book encompasses different
traditions and somewhat resembles Roger Haight’s three-volume Christian
Community in History and Erick Jay’s The Church: Its Changing Image
through Twenty Centuries. The reviewed book is different: its scope is
limited to the Eastern branch of Christianity; and in writing it the author
seeks to meet the need for “critical analysis” of the structures of the
Orthodox Church (2).
Dr. Hovorun
endeavours “to lay bare the structures that define the life of the eastern
churches” (1). He deconstructs the ontological perspective on the structures,
explaining how they evolved and transformed, using the instruments of critical
theory (structuralism/ poststructuralism) (1, 181). He suggests that “the
formation of administrative structures in the church increased the distance
between ordained clergy and laity” and that “the development of the internal
borderlines in the church strengthened its imagined external boundaries” (9).
The author builds on these two hypotheses indicating how in the process of
historical development the structures transformed, departing from their
original functions and eventually changing the original beliefs about the
church.
The author approaches
the task creatively using different images that correlate to the ecclesiastical
institutions treated in the respective chapters. The images expose typical
features, as well as strong and weak traits of the structures. Moreover, with
these images he wants “to establish causality between various structural
shortcomings” (192).
The book consists of
introduction, seven chapters, conclusion and four appendices.
The first two
chapters set the stage for further analysis of ecclesial structures. In Chapter
One the author suggests that theoretical distinctions – the image of fine
pencil lines – used by theologians evolved into the “blueprints” and,
eventually, resulted in different ecclesiological models. These distinctions
are between the church as historical phenomenon and object of faith; church for
everyone and for some; dualism of sacred and profane; church universal and
particular. Though “theoretical” and “imagined” (11) they had practical
consequences. Thus, the church as historical reality challenges some beliefs
about the church as the object of faith (15), while the dualism of visible and
invisible introduces difference between the real and ideal church that
demotivates Christians to traverse the gap between them (24).
Chapter Two treats
the church as community and movement. Community was the initial structure that
belonged to the nature of the church (50). The communities shared fundamental
values and practices, they adopted different models: synagogue, ecclesia,
collegium or household (51-56). As the movement developed and spread the
need for inter-communal relations emerged. Again, these adopted different
models: some were attached to one centre – Jerusalem (the model of diaspora);
others were more or less autonomous (polis); still others adopted a
model of imperium that united different Roman collegia and employed
complex structure (59). The networks required some form of leadership to deal
with the issues that exceeded capacities of local communities. Thus, in the
neighbourhood model churches were equal, served each other’s needs and
considered crucial issues at the occasional councils of bishops (59-60).
However, soon some churches claimed higher authority because they were planted
by apostles or had very authoritative bishops and, therefore, occupied a higher
level in the chart of honour. This is reflected in ordering the neighbourhood
and transition to “metropolitan” model which united the churches of a province,
introduced and institutionalised hierarchy among the bishops, made the councils
of bishops regular and, finally, turned network of communities in the province
into “super-church” (60-3). The author applies to this process a metaphor of
partition walls and convincingly demonstrates the ambivalence of the structures
which, besides helping and uniting communities, erected barriers between the
networks of churches.
The next three
chapters focus on the consequences of the shift towards territoriality for
church structures. Chapter Three explains how adoption of the Roman concept of
territoriality and civil order helped churches to realise their universalistic
impulse and solve many administrative issues (74-5) but caused tensions between
different jurisdictions (77-9) and eventually conditioned growth of the concept
of sovereignty (the image of ditches) coined in modern times as “canonical
territory” (82-7). The idea of political sovereignty, that emerged in the
mid-XVIIs and fully ripen by XIXs century, as well as connectedness of church
sovereignty to the national borders facilitated this development. Admitting
some negative aspects of the “canonical territory” – tensions between old
jurisdictions and new national churches in the early XXs century; disputes over
“no-church’s land” (83); connection with neo-imperial projects (85) – the
author believes it is still valuable if it serves the end of unity and is “applied
with the interests of the communities, not jurisdictions” (86). Chapter Four
explores versions, transformations of the meaning and historical cases of
autocephaly (the image of a stronghold). Describing autocephaly the author goes
beyond the canonical and administrative perspectives, highlighting its role in
strengthening political independence of states, formation of national and
cultural identities, serving as an instrument of deimperialization and
indigenization (89). Territoriality also raises the question of primacy treated
in Chapter Five (image of pyramids). Perhaps, this is the most interesting and
important chapter (along with the conclusion) in the book where the author
touches very sensitive issues: primacy among historical churches and its
implications for church hierarchy. He goes to the root of the problem, asking
whether primacy is part of the nature of the church or its scaffolding (129).
Dr. Hovorun points that western and eastern theologians viewed primacy
differently: as divinely instituted (129-30) or as rooted in eucharistic
ecclesiology (von Balthasar, de Lubac, Zizioulas). Zizioulas builds his view of
primacy on the bishop presiding in the Eucharist and monarchy of the Father in
relations to other hypostases of the Trinity. The author claims that Zizioulian
approach “endangers the fundamental idea of the equality of the trinitarian
persons” and cannot logically pass from “Trinity to primacy within the church”
(131). Answering the root question, he turns to Ambrosiaster and Pseudo-Dionysius
the Areopagite. The former represented the conventional perspective on the
structures and “projected the earthly hierarchies to the divine realities”
while the latter “placed the structures of the church in a metaphysical matrix
... from God to the church” (132). The second view drew from Neoplatonism,
which creatively synthesised Platonic and Aristotelian visions of hierarchy,
and was thoroughly grounded on its philosophy (133-42). The author raises the
appropriate question whether this view is rooted in the Christian tradition
(139). His answer is negative for neither the Bible nor early theological
tradition knows anything similar to it. Moreover, it even contradicts the
Neoplatonic idea of unchanging nature. Since hierarchy depended on the varied
historical and social contexts it could only be “useful, but not sacred”
(143).
In Chapter Six the
author turns to the issue of ministry. He admits that it belongs to the nature
of the church while the hierarchical principle does not. In his survey of the
historical transformation of ministry and emergence of hierarchy the author
highlights several reasons for this: (a) legalization of Christianity (145);
(b) development of administrative structures (146); and (c) combining
charismata with offices (150). Hierarchy is the result of a long and slow
historical journey from egalitarian and charismatic ministry to mono-
episcopacy. Growth of significance of episcopacy resulted in the exclusion of
laity from episcopal elections and further stratification of the church (the
image of strata). Hierarchy was theologically justified by Pseudo-Dionysius the
Areopagite. This caused further division between the laity and ministry but,
surprisingly, “facilitated assimilation between the civil and ecclesial strata
that appeared to be on the same level of the hierarchical ladder” (161). “The
fine line of the demarcation between the community and its ministers that had
existed in the early Christian centuries turned into a high wall between lay
people and hierarchs,” concludes Dr. Hovorun (162).
Chapter Seven touches
the question of boundaries of the church. The author points out that developed
administrative structures increase the divide between the laity and ministers
and erect the walls between the church and the world. He uses the image of
frontiers which is “a key image for understanding what the church is in its
nature and how it is related to the world” (163). Surveying theological
positions on the conditions for admission into the church, Dr. Hovorun comes to
the conclusion – similar to that of Nikolay Afanasiev – that “attitude to
baptism in other denominations reflected the varying historical circumstances
rather than a firm theological position” (166). He claims that none of the
proposed approaches solves the problem and suggests that “this problem has no
solution at all, until we get rid of the conventional image of borderline
between the church and non-church as sharp-cut edge” (179). His proposal
consists of returning to the idea of frontiers which are not lines but
territories porous and open for expansion. The image, opines the author,
coincides with the early church’s concept of mission aimed at including new
peoples and territories and transforming them.
In the concluding
chapter Dr. Hovorun collects together all the major threads of his argument,
coming to the conclusion: “the ecclesial structures emerged in the course of
history, as instruments to facilitate the church’s pursuit of particular goals”
(181). He insists on the distinction between esse and bene esse of
the church. Thus, communities, sacraments, ministry, even liturgy, belong to
the church’s nature while the supra-communal structures and hierarchy represent
the latter (183). He argues that the structures are subject to such maladies as
jurisdictionism, hierarchism, institutionalism and ecclesiocentrism (190-2).
That is why every generation needs to re-evaluate the structures and rediscover
the reason for their existence and their relation to the mission of the church
(193). Dr. Hovorun is convinced that the structures should be perceived not as
“ontological” but as “relational” (196) and “accommodate human freedom” (197).
This is a creative,
instructive and very engaging book, written in a clear prose. The author
demonstrates a high level of competency while dealing with complex and delicate
issues. He argues convincingly for his thesis, supporting it from a wide range
of historical, sociological, philosophical and political studies. Some maps
reproduced in the book are of poor quality and leave the reader with the
feeling of disappointment. In spite of that anyone interested in ecclesiology
in general and the ecclesial structures in particular will benefit from reading
this book.
Oleksandr Geychenko,
University of St Andrews St Andrews, UK ORCID:
0000-0002-0677-3456
Published in Oleksandr
Geychenko, “Cyril Hovorun. Scaffolds of the Church: Towards Poststructural
Ecclesiology.” Theological Reflections Euro-Asian Journal of Theology,
no. 20 (2018): 272–75. doi:10.29357/issn
[1] Cyril
Hovorun, Meta-Ecclesiology: Chronicles on Church Awareness (New York,
NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).