.png "English"){kind=small}
 | |
In January the Ecumenical Patriarchate approved a social document, titled For the Life of the World,
that formulates guiding principles for the role of the Orthodox
Church—and the responsibility of Orthodox Christians—in the modern
world. In his letter of endorsement, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
praised the theological commission that drafted the document for having
addressed “the complex challenges and problems of today’s world, without
at the same time overlooking the favorable potential and positive
perspectives of contemporary civilization.” The document will be
available on the website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
and published in print by Holy Cross Orthodox Press in April.
For the Life of the World, which runs to about 33,000 words,
provides helpful general guidelines for Orthodox Christians struggling
to navigate contemporary challenges. It begins with the fundamental
contours of an Orthodox Christian worldview and concludes on a prayerful
note, with an expression of hope for personal and social
transformation. Its approach to critical and controversial
issues—including racism, poverty, human rights, bioethics, technology,
and climate change—is both rigorous and pastoral. The work of a dozen
scholars throughout the world (including Commonweal contributor David Bentley Hart),
the document is an unmistakably collaborative “achievement,” as the
Ecumenical Patriarch describes it in his endorsement. It is the tangible
result of extensive hierarchical assessment and comprehensive synodal
approval. In their preface, the editors describe the project as “a
complicated, not to say contentious, undertaking.” The aim was to
delineate an Orthodox “ethos”:
It is impossible for the Church truly to follow Christ or to make him present to the world if it fails to place this absolute concern for the poor and disadvantaged at the very center of its moral, religious, and spiritual life. The pursuit of social justice and civil equity—provision for the poor and shelter for the homeless, protection for the weak, welcome for the displaced, and assistance for the disabled—is not merely an ethos the Church recommends for the sake of a comfortable conscience, but is a necessary means of salvation, the indispensable path to union with God in Christ; and to fail in these responsibilities is to invite condemnation before the judgment seat of God. (§33)Notwithstanding its broad scope, the document does not hesitate to offer pointed commentary on controversial topics. For example, it has this to say on inequality:
On the refugee crisis:Among the most common evils of all human societies—though often brought to an unprecedented level of refinement and precision in modern developed countries—are the gross inequalities of wealth often produced or abetted by regressive policies of taxation and insufficient regulation of fair wages, which favor the interests of those rich enough to influence legislation and secure their wealth against the demands of the general good. (§35)
The developed world everywhere knows the presence of refugees and asylum-seekers, many legally admitted but also many others without documentation. They confront the consciences of wealthier nations daily with their sheer vulnerability, indigence, and suffering. This is a global crisis, but also a personal appeal to our faith, to our deepest moral natures, to our most inabrogable responsibilities. (§66)On science:
And the Church encourages the faithful to be grateful for—and to accept—the findings of the sciences, even those that might occasionally oblige them to revise their understandings of the history and frame of cosmic reality. The desire for scientific knowledge flows from the same wellspring as faith’s longing to enter ever more deeply into the mystery of God. (§71)
Notwithstanding its broad scope, the document does not hesitate to offer pointed commentary on controversial topics
For the Life of the World
has special significance when viewed against the background of Orthodox
history. The Eastern Church has long been wary of—even allergic
to—social statements of this kind. At some point in its long Byzantine
excursion, Eastern Christianity stopped dealing with questions related
to the present and instead focused on the reiteration of formulas from
the past. The Eastern Church considered itself well equipped for
handling otherworldly or sacred things, whereas the state was entrusted
with worldly or secular things. This understanding of a clearly defined
role for the church in relation to the clearly designated responsibility
of the state inevitably narrowed the Eastern approach to social
justice. Issues having to do with politics and policy (especially as
they relate to power and corruption), or with economy and science
(especially as they relate to poverty and prosperity), were either
minimized or dismissively delegated to Western Christianity. In fact,
the West excelled in these domains. By contrast, matters of personal
maturity and spiritual integrity became the principal interest and
mystical investment of Eastern Christianity.
It wasn’t always this way. The Eastern church once had a bold voice
on social justice. A cursory reading of fourth-century writers like
Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom reveals the prominence of the
social dimension of the Gospel both in their thinking and their
ministry. Certainly Basil the Great strenuously disapproved of retreat
from the world. Any eschatology that encouraged escapism from one’s time
and place was denounced as heretical and hazardous. Over time, however,
an emphasis in the Christian East on monasticism (as the silent withdrawal into the heart) and mysticism
(as the spiritual enchantment of the heavenly) provided a justification
for disengagement from the world, with various important consequences
for Orthodoxy’s ecclesiology, liturgy, and ethos. Even the conventional
safety-valve of Orthodox Christian ethics—the relationship between
spiritual elder (almost exclusively male) and spiritual disciple—is
frequently a way of evading concern for universal principles and
surrendering to the personal discretion of an individual.
More recently, Orthodoxy’s social doctrine has been further reduced
to an emphasis on nationalism as the means of survival in times of
persecution and oppression. During such periods, the church
instinctively turned inward, identifying with the early martyrs and
focusing on the mere preservation of the faith at the expense of
evangelization. Yet another reason Orthodox Christianity has either
abandoned or failed to develop a clear social vision is the tendency to
denounce or dismiss anything that resembles Western Christianity.
In 2000, the Church of Moscow published “The Basis of the Social Concept,”
an admirable though rudimentary effort to outline the social principles
of the Orthodox Church in Russia after an extended period of state
suppression. The overall approach of that document was critical of “the
world,” regarding it as a threat to be defied and defeated. Such a
defensive posture may survive and even thrive under conditions of
confessional isolation, but it doesn’t fare as well in a more ecumenical
context.
In contrast, it was at least partly the encounter with other
traditions and cultures, other branches of Christianity and even other
religions, that inspired the worldwide Orthodox Churches to convene the
Holy and Great Council in Crete in 2016. Meeting together for the first
time in almost a millennium, Orthodox patriarchs and hierarchs—together
with a handful of consultants—issued a formal decree as well as an encyclical message
on “the role of the Orthodox Church in the contemporary world.” The new
document complements the work of the Council and can be understood as
part of the process of its reception.
For the Life of the World is the fruit of an unprecedented
collaboration between the official Orthodox hierarchy and lay Orthodox
scholars and theologians. The Orthodox Church could still do much more
to involve and inform the laity on matters related to doctrine and
polity—a hardened nucleus of clericalism persists in Orthodox
Christianity—but this project is a mark of important progress. The fact
that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew commissioned and endorsed such a
forward-looking document demonstrates a welcome and refreshing shift in
mentality for a church that has often been more comfortable keeping its
attention fixed on the past. It is the work of a religious tradition
that will no longer settle for mere survival.
