THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND ITS SOCIAL ETHOS: THE AIMS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD

 

Ecumenical TrendsVol 49 No 5,  Graymoor Ecumenical & Interreligious Institute  September/October 2020, pp. 1-5

 Dr. Carrie Frederick Frost is Lecturer in the Global Humanities and Religions Department of Western Washington University and Adjunct Professor at Saint Sophia Ukrainian Orthodox Seminary. She is the author of Maternal Body: A Theology of Incarnation from the Christian East (Paulist Press, 2019) and the editor of The Reception of the Holy and Great Council: Reflections of Orthodox Christian Women (GOARCH, 2018). She serves on the board of the International Orthodox Theological Association (IOTA) and the advisory board of the Saint Phoebe Center for the Deaconess

 It is not just our personal calling, but our corporate des-tiny, through our participation in the community of Christ’s body, to enter into union with God. Therefore, our spiritual lives cannot fail also to be social lives. This is the foundational thinking of For the Life of the World: Toward a Social Ethos of the Orthodox Church – a signif-icant and singular document recently released by a special commission of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of the Orthodox Church.

 The purpose of For the Life of the World is “to serve as a solid foundation for reference and conversation on vital issues and challenges facing the world today” (“Preface”). As benign – or constructive and helpful – as this may seem, it will be met with some controversy, because it addresses contemporary social issues in a sustained manner that is unusual for the Orthodox Church.There is a history here. Orthodox Christians understand the period of the seven Ecumenical Councils to be the doc-trinally normative era of the Church, during which the her-esies were quelled and a degree of clarity was established (at least as much as humans can muster) around who God is and around our relationship to him. Therefore, some sug-gest that the relationship to the truth offered through the work of the Councils as well as through Jesus Christ himself (as encountered in the Eucharist, mediated by Scripture, and refracted through the communion of the saints) provides sufficient means for discernment for encountering social issues – for all people, during all places, at all times – and that additional statements on such are unnecessary. Furthermore, it is often asserted that these sorts of statements become quickly outdated and possibly promote conformity to societal trends, rather than allegiance to unchanging truths. This perception of things explains a certain reluctance on the part of both laity and clergy for the Church (in council or otherwise) to comment on current social issues. As a bishop said to me about the document: “We don’t usually go in for this sort of thing.” For the Life of the World acknowledges the normative foundation of the doctrine of the Church, relies on its accu-mulated experience and wisdom, and also strongly values and nourishes the faithful’s capacity for discernment. Yet it goes further: following its core conviction that our spiritual lives must also be our social lives, it brings the doctrine, wisdom, and discerning powers of the Church to bear on today’s encounter with social realities, including pluralism, globalization, secularization, consumerism, and individual-ization. This is in response to the sense of many Orthodox Christians – clergy and laity – that, even though “we don’t usually go in for this sort of thing,” the Orthodox Church owes its flock guidance in navigating the muddy waters of the twenty-first century. Another central conviction of For the Life of the World is that the Church has a hopeful and affirmative vision of life which it is uniquely able to offer to a spiritually thirsty and discouraged world. Though it was written before the scourge of COVID-19 touched the Earth, its hopeful and affirmative vision is especially fitting to this time.*For the Life of the World was composed by a special commission of Orthodox scholars appointed by His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, of which I am a member. It was in part prompted by the Orthodox Christian Holy and Great Council of 2016, a conciliar meet-ing of the autocephalous Orthodox churches (four of which did not attend), which attempted to encounter issues of the contemporary world. The Ecumenical Patriarch understood the continued need, in the spirit of the Council, to further this effort and thus he convened our commission. The composition of the commission is notable because it was not comprised of hierarchs (as was the case in the Council) or even exclusively clergy; instead it was com-posed mostly of laity, including two women. It included a variety of theologians, ethicists, professors (seminary and university), and scholars from Greece and the United States, indicating the Ecumenical Patriarch’s interest in using the expertise of his flock for the benefit of the Church.He tasked the commission in 2017 to draft a document “on the social doctrine of the Orthodox Church, as this has been reflected and expressed in the tradition through the centuries and by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in contemporary practice” (“Preface”).The audience of the document was to be everyone: laypeople, bishops, seminarians, priests, monastics, and so on. The commission went through a pro-cess of receiving input from the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Synod (including feedback they solicited from their constit-uencies) and drafting the document, which was ultimately blessed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and commended and approved for publication by his Synod. For the Life of the World was released in over a dozen languages as Orthodox Christians around the world journeyed through Great Lent, including being published in English on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website (www.goarch.org/social-ethos) and in book format by Holy Cross Orthodox Press. The list of special commission members is published with the document; For the Life of the World is not being released as an anonymous or hierarchical-authored docu-ment. In the composition of the document, of course, our commission sought to remove our personalities and pref-erences from the text, and to instead write to and for the Orthodox Church. One disadvantage of the inclusion of our names is the inevitable distraction of a readership that may seek to match certain names to certain topics and then be tempted to disregard the actual content or merit of those topics. An advantage of the presence of our names is a free-dom around the discussion of the document that perhaps would not have come so easily had it been issued with the sole imprimatur of the Orthodox Church; indeed, as stated in the “Preface,” the special commission offers For the Life of the World “to the church at large as a preliminary step toward a far more expansive theological dialogue and as an aid to spiritual growth for the Orthodox faithful.” I cannot say that the inclusion of the names of the spe-cial commission is usual or unusual because there are so few precedents for this sort of document in the Orthodox world; there is no context in which to fit it. As noted earlier, our bishops and synods do not release messages to the faith-ful or encyclicals to each other on social topics with any frequency. I know of no other occasion on which scholars of the Orthodox Church have been summoned to respond to the social situation of the faithful in the world and then their creation (with input from hierarchs) was published and distributed. The only other document in recent times that is comparable in content is “The Basis of the Social Concept,” released by the Sacred Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000 to give its teachings on “church-state relations and a number of problems socially significant today” (“Introduction”). “The Basis of the Social Concept”is presented in a more authoritative, dogmatic fashion, stating in the “Introduction” that “it gives a number of guidelines to be applied in these social-ethical issues by the episcopate, clergy and laity.”

 It is interesting that the two Orthodox churches that have, in different ways, prepared and released far-reaching statements on contemporary social issues are the two churches most visibly at odds with each other today. The Russian Orthodox Church severed communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch last year after the latter granted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Even prior to this breach, it was well known that their paths in the modern world are different, and, accordingly, each ac-knowledges that its social ethos document is faithful to its own interpretation of the trajectory of tradition. The Russian document states, “The nature of the document is determined by the needs experienced by the whole of the Russian Orthodox Church...” (“Introduction”), whereas the Ecumenical Patriarch instructed the commission, to repeat a quotation from above, to create a document “on the social doctrine of the Orthodox Church, as this has been reflected and expressed in the tradition through the centuries and by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in contemporary practice” (“Preface”) (italics mine). Here is a clear example of the ways the autocephalouschurches function as “local” churches: the social issues facing the post-Soviet Russian flock are understood to be different than those facing the Ecumenical Patriarch’s diaspora flock, spread throughout North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and Asia. While both doc-uments make some universal claims based on the test of time which are in unison, such as a shared rejection of abor-tion on demand (though, let it be noted, there is room for analysis on what is shared versus at conflict between the documents), there are many pastoral dimensions to these documents that illustrate they are ministering to different flocks. The Russian Orthodox Church focuses on provid-ing for what it perceives to be a homogenous faithful by an emphasis on its historical roots, whereas For the Life of the World seeks to reach the Ecumenical Patriarch’s culturally and ethnically diverse flock by embracing pluralism as “one of the special glories of our age” (§12). These differences on emphasis and in pastoral concerns are part of the Orthodox reality of the autocephalous churches. *Though inspired by the 2016 Holy and Great Council, For the Life of the World goes well beyond the Council doc-uments in terms of its determination to speak directly to the realities of modern life and in its choice of focus on specific modern issues. For example, its language around the sexual abuse of children is possibly the strongest and clearest statement issued in the Orthodox world, which has disparate sexual abuse policies across churches and jurisdictions'

No offense against God is worse than is the sexual abuse of children, and none more intolerable to the con-science of the Church. All members of Christ’s body are charged with the protection of the young against such violation, and there is no situation in which a member of the Church, on learning of any case of the sexual abuse of a child, may fail immediately to report it to the civil authorities and to the local bishop. Moreover, every faithful Christian is no less bound to expose those who would conceal such crimes from public knowledge or shield them from legal punishment. Neither should any priest ever grant absolution to the perpetrator of such a crime until the latter has surrendered himself or herself to criminal prosecution. (§16)Contained here is the acknowledgement that the Orthodox Church is not immune to this atrocious sin and a welcome expectation that the Church hold itself – all of its members – to a higher standard than the law of the land.The document also does not hesitate to call out and condemn, in crisp, frank language, other social ills and sins (some of which are certainly not unique to our time): corruption and totalitarianism (§8); racism (§11); persecu-tion based on sexual orientation (§19); antisemitism (§57); oppressive regimes and policies that create and perpetuate poverty (§33-41); the death penalty (§48); modern forms of slavery (including human trafficking, wage slavery, and coerced labor) (§65); mistreatment of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers (§66-67); and exploitation of the world’s resources (§74-75). As will surprise no one who knows the concerns of the Ecumenical Patriarch, nicknamed the “Green Patriarch,” one of these ills is the ecological crisis, and here the document does not just leave off at a lament, but expresses a vision of hope that will be necessary for humanity to encounter the future together. This is a gift to the conversation about the crisis that the Church is uniquely poised to give, when so much of the current conversation is grounded in panic and hopelessness. In contrast, this vision is of human beings as bound to all of creation, as well as one that encourages them to rejoice in the goodness and beauty of the whole world. This ethos and this spirit together remind us that gratitude and wonder, hope and joy, are our only appropriate - indeed, our truly creative and fruitful - attitude in the face of the ecological crisis now confronting the planet, because they alone can give us the willingness and the resolve to serve the good of creation as unremittingly as we must, out of love for it and its creator. (§78)The topic of contraception is addressed in the context of celebrating the Church’s understanding of sacramental marriage and the expectation that Orthodox marriages will be open to children, who, in the Orthodox theological understanding of marriage, do not define the marriage, but can be a blessing to the unitive bond of marriage. First it is acknowledged that there are reasons that a marriage may be closed to children forever or, more likely, for a season: “there are situations in which spiritual, physical, psycho-logical, or financial impediments arise that make it wise – at least for a time – to delay or forego the bearing of chil-dren” (§24). A statement on the use of contraception in these cases is then offered: “The Orthodox Church has no dogmatic objection to the use of safe and non-abortifacient contraceptives within the context of married life, not as an ideal or as a permanent arrangement, but as a provisional concession to necessity” (§24). This is significant because there have been very few words of guidance (from the hierarchs or from theologians and ethicists) on contraception and, therefore, there has been pastoral confusion around its appropriate use. The discretionary and particular usage of contraception described here will provide the faithful with a new level of clarity. Found within For the Life of the World are several remarkable statements around women in the church. Embedded in a recognition of the Church’s “doctrine and theology that men and women are equals in personhood” is the admission that “it has not always proved scrupu-lously faithful to this ideal” (§29). Several specific matters are then addressed, including “ancient and essentially superstitious prejudices about purity and impurity in regard to women’s bodies,” which prohibit women from receiv-ing the Eucharist during menstruation and after childbirth. As archaic as these practices sound, they are alive and well in many parts of the Orthodox Church today, but the preparation for communion for women insisted upon in this document is the same as for any other Christians: prayer and fasting. Furthermore, the Orthodox Church is encouraged to “remain attentive to the promptings of Spirit in regard to the ministry of women” and to “continue to consider how women can best participate in building up the body  of Christ, including a renewal of the order of the female diaconate for today” (§29). As the conversation about deaconesses in the Catholic Church takes new twists and turns, the interest and possibility for reinstituting this order in the Orthodox Church continues to progress steadily, as witnessed by the consecration of deaconesses in Africa in 2017 in the Church of Alexandria (one of the other auto-cephalous churches) and as now endorsed by For the Life of the World – both in the above-quoted statement and once again in the “Conclusion.” The optimistic openness to dea-conesses in a document blessed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and approved by his Synod lends strong credence to those who favor their reinstitution (myself included) and opens up the possibility for conversations of how to go about reviving the order.A lengthy section is dedicated to “Poverty, Wealth, and Civil Justice,” which stresses that the Church must follow Christ and place its “absolute concern for the poor and disadvantaged at the very center of its moral, religious, and spiritual life” (§33). It examines several facets of the contemporary global economy (including wealth inequal-ity, international labor law, debt and creditor practices, and healthcare) and suggests ways that the Church might express its concern for the poor in the world today. While recognizing that the poor will always be with us, this sec-tion attempts to think about the Church’s rightful response to the poor in light of the unique conditions of our era in a more concrete, direct way than is typical for Orthodox encounters with this subject. A section on “Ecumenical Relations and Relations with Other Faiths” emphasizes the Orthodox Church’s self-understanding as “the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol speaks” (§50), reaffirms its commitment to ecumenical relations on those terms (the Ecumenical Patriarchate wasa founding member of the WCC, for example), and rec-ognizes its close relations and dialogues with the Roman Catholic Church and other churches, which it hopes “may bear fruit in a complete unity with the Church” (§53). Perhaps most notable in this section is its stance towards Islam and Judaism, recognizing that the Orthodox Church has a unique responsibility with regard to the other two “peoples of the book” (§56). Based on their common roots, their common affirmation of the unity of God, and other shared traditions, Islam and Orthodoxy are thus capable of entering “into an intimate conversation for the advance-ment of peace and understanding among all peoples” (§56). The fact is acknowledged that bigotry and violence against Jews have long been a conspicuous evil of the cultures of Christendom, and that this persists today, but the document moves beyond acknowledgment to commitment: “In expia-tion for those crimes against the Jewish people specifically committed in Orthodox lands, the Church seeks both God’s forgiveness as well as a deeper relation of love and regard with Jewish communities and the Jewish faith” (§57). *My observation as a member of the special commis-sion is that readers of For the Life of the World tend to be attracted to certain sections based on their own proclivities and investments. I am not exempt from this, and even in this article readers of the document will notice that I have focused on aspects having to do with human life and the body, which are interest areas of my own theological work. One way to encounter the document would be to spot-read it based on one’s interests. But it is worthwhile to read For the Life of the World in its entirety, because of its overarching theological themes. It was the aim of the commission to ground the encoun-ter with the modern world in this document in positive, transfigurative terms. The document returns to the themes, established in the “Introduction,” of who we are as human beings, our necessary social ethos, and the loving commu-nion with neighbor and with God that drives this ethos. The document clearly and repeatedly acknowledges the broken-ness of the world, but just as many times reminds us that we as humans are called to strive for goodness and justice, even knowing that these things will be imperfect in this life. At its best, For the Life of the World offers an ethos – a way of thinking, a spirit for our age – that may help Orthodox Christians faithfully and hopefully live their lives and may offer a witness to this way of life to others. There is no short-age of terror, despair, and sadness in today’s world. But, for us as Christians, there is also no shortage of courage, joy, and delight. It is our vocation to cultivate the latter, not to succumb to the former. For the Life of the World is offered in this spirit