Abbot Jonah of St. John of San Francisco Orthodox monastery in California, gave a talk recently at St. Vladimir's Seminary, on the subject of the right role of bishops. He began by quoting an Orthodox theologian who said recently that bishops have become "useless" -- a judgment Jonah does not dispute. Here is a crucial part of his discussion of what a bishop really should be -- and how the episcopal salt lost its savor, causing a crisis throughout the Orthodox Church:
The role and nature of episcopal leadership within the church is the core issue underlying all these institutional problems. all levels of episcopal primacy have been secularized, cast in terms of civil offices. Thus the patriarch is made analogous to an emperor, a bishop to a prince of the church, etc. They even dress up in church like Byzantine civil officials. The real nature of ministry, of arch-pastorship, and of christian leadership, is lost.What is the structure of leadership within the church? on all levels, it is a structure of obedience. The presbyters are in a relationship of obedience to their bishop. The bishops are in a relationship of obedience to their primate. The primate is in the relationship of spiritual father to his bishops. Jurisdiction is about a relationship of obedience, which is precisely responsibility and accountability.
The crisis in the episcopacy is rooted in the breakdown of the basic structure of spiritual obedience, which is the essence of orthodox christianity. Spiritual obedience is not subjection and compliance. rather, it is a hierarchy of love and shared responsibility, a hierarchy of discipleship. What is this but a structure of accountability in a spirit of trust and cooperation, in mutual love and respect? moreover, it is a complex of very personal
relationships. When these relationships become simply institutional, and the personal becomes relativized, the very nature of the church, which in its very essence is about the actualization of authentic personhood, is distorted.This breakdown comes from the secularization of the church's structure by the centuries of imperial subjugation, by the corruption of authority into power, by the reduction of church leadership to an institutional model, and the reduction of membership in the church to civic duty. The Faith itself was degraded from a personal commitment to christ to a socio-political ideology. Nominal church membership and nominal orthodox iden-
tity are the foundations of secularization. This kind of corruption began in the fourth century. When the church was subjected to the Roman, then Ottoman, and then Russian Empires, then to the status of state church, it was effectively reduced to a department of state. The bishops and administration of the church assumed imperial roles, insignia, and rituals; and with them, the Christian vision of the leader as servant became a hypocritical parody {Emphasis mine -- RD.}. Of course, there have been notable exceptions.This led to the separation of charismatic and institutional authority within the church. What followed was the bureaucratization of church leadership: the reduction of the episcopacy to institutional administration, and the virtual elimination of its pastoral role. Charismatic authority within the church was tolerated among monastic elders, but had little other influence in the life of the church from the late Byzantine period through the Turkokratia and the suppressions of monasticism in the Russian Empire. The fruit of this was the suppression of creativity and initiative, theologically and organizationally, for fear of being disciplined and rejected. instead, personal ambition and competition for position became dominant within the church's institution. charismatic leadership arising
from spiritual vision, the fruit of asceticism, found little context to express itself, even being regarded as dangerous, in the state-controlled institution of the church.The bishops came to wield power over the lives of their clergy, and instead of being chief pastors, they became distant administrators feared by their clergy. Obedience became confused with compliance and submission. Authority came to be identified with power, humility with subjection, and respect with adulation and sycophancy. accountability was always referred "upwards:" the bishops to the patriarch and emperor or sultan; the priests to the bishops; while the people simply ignored the hierarchy. Even the monasteries, where the ancient vision of the apostolic church was most clearly maintained, were subjected to this secularization of power and office.
The corrupting fruit of secularization is fear and the lack of trust, hence isolation, autonomy, self-will and the breakdown of the real authority of the episcopacy. it destroys souls and the institution of the church. Secularization reduces the Body of christ to a religious organization; it is the form of religion, deprived of its power.
This is an Orthodox version of the argument Phil Lawler made about the Catholic bishops in his book "The Faithful Departed." About worldliness and a desire to exercise power corrupting the true mission of the bishops, and in turn of the Church. Wouldn't it be great if this abbot, with this vision of the episcopacy, were made a bishop? Well, it looks like he is, soon -- he's been nominated to succeed Archbishop Dmitri as head of the Diocese of the South. That is, he'll be the bishop at the cathedral where I go to church. I think this is a marvelous thing.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Eric W, I think you have a point, as regards Dionysios anyway. My experience is that Orthodox folks acknowledge that his works are pseudonymous but hold they are authoritative anyway. But I doubt they would have attained the authority they had for centuries if they had not been taken as real writings by a disciple of St. Paul's...
& of course they are important influences on the ideas of the hierarchy of the Church that developed in the centuries after the time of the apostles.
Eric W, I think you have a point, as regards Dionysios anyway. My experience is that Orthodox folks acknowledge that his works are pseudonymous but hold they are authoritative anyway. But I doubt they would have attained the authority they had for centuries if they had not been taken as real writings by a disciple of St. Paul's...
So, we not only have an unknown pseudonymous forger canonized and venerated as a Saint, but his writings, because they were considered, as you note, to be authentic, influenced the person who is arguably one of the most important theologians from an Orthodox or Trinitarian perspective, St. Maximus the Confessor.
Yes, church history is interesting. :-)
How big should a diocese be anyway? I recall reading that the San Antonio RC diocese has 700,000 communicants. I cannot imagine that a single bishop can care for that many souls. I can understand the setup of a given geographic territory, but pairing it with modern cities that have huge populations doesn't seem to be the best strategy for an episcopacy that can effectively shepherd the Body of Christ.
Caveat: I'm a Protestant. Sometimes I even wonder if the church I attend (at about 600) is too big.
"When the church was subjected to the Roman, then Ottoman, and then Russian Empires, then to the status of state church, it was effectively reduced to a department of state."
The Church. "Subject to the Ottoman and then Russian Empires." This reminds me of Roman Catholic (i.e., "papist") conservatives carrying on about how the language of "the Church" is Latin. How the Douay Rheims and Vulgate trump the Septuagint and Greek Testaments..
Just look at how bogus we all are. Caught up and mesmerized by the minutiae our Schism. See how our conception of the Church Entire (Catholic) is defined, and confined, by these ancient political divisions and squabbles.
The "Pope of Rome" had the gall to go and break with the Byzantine Imperial system. He (Gregory VII, Innocent III, etc. etc.) dared to assert Imperial supremacy over the entire Church, even over (Boniface VIII, etc., etc.) secular political authority. To the point that it widely believed that he can revolutionize 2000 years of liturgical tradition solely on his own authority.
Can one escape this by fleeing East?
"The bishops are in a relationship of obedience to their primate. The primate is in the relationship of spiritual father to his bishops. Jurisdiction is about a relationship of obedience, which is precisely responsibility and accountability."
But the Pentarchy was established by authority of ecumenical council, wasn't it? And the first see, the Primal see (according to the Councils of Nicea, Trullo, Calcedon, as well as many Emporers, both Greek & German, beginning with Justinian) is Rome.
Watch now as Alexi & Bartholomew snipe at one another. Alexi, who was vetted by the KGB; Bartholomew who was approved by the Saracen Turk.
Our ecclesiologies, both East and West are all a mess. From the Conciliar condemnations of by way Conciliar decree of Popes Vigilius and Honorious for heresy, all the way to the present Orthodox jurisdictional mess in North America (how many bishops should reign in a city? If you are Orthodox, the answer is "legion.")
You've escaped the "Novus Ordo" Rod, but you've only landed yourself in a far subtler (but to my mind just as toxic) ecclesiastical boondoggle.
Forget Vatican III, it's high time for Nicea III.
I'm sure the Turks will have us..
Seems historic, bitter human resentments about church authority continue to block Jesus's message about loving those who hate you. Curious that per the gospels, beside eating with sinners, Jesus did not reject even Judas from communicating with "the team" at the last supper. However, it's somehow necessary for orthodox to ban inter-communion with catholics, and vis-a-versa. Maybe even punish those who do. In case you missed this:
Front Page / Editorial
A Solomonic decision
The Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church has emphasized the ban on sacramental inter-communion, yet avoided to punish the two hierarchs who have recently taken the liberty of doing so. A Solomonic decision of exemplary balance. There have been averted any ambiguities over the dogmatic basis for inter-communion, but also the witch-hunt for which some had already been readying. The guilt of those incriminated has not been conjured away, quite the opposite, as it was extended to the lay that would partake in the Eucharist with non-Orthodox believers. The polemics sparked by the gestures made by the metropolitan bishop of Banat and the Oradea bishop respectively have prompted a clear-cut synod reaction over ecumenical attitudes. Aside from the ill-willed and unfair innuendos from some opponents who read such gestures as a trend towards Catholicization, the gestures were motivated by a wish for rapprochement to a Church held as sisterly.
Let’s not forget that one of the images floated during the inter-war period, when the reunion of the two ‘national’ churches from Ardeal was of two pews for the same altar. Back then however, the modern ecumenical movement was only in incipient stage and had yet not stirred the kind of turmoil it does today, due to the vagaries of a close, good-willed relationship, yet grounded in implicit compromises. Adding to this privileged relationship with the Greek-Catholics, which relied not just on a common national history, but also a similar Eastern/Orthodox dogmatic and liturgical tradition, was the special relationship with the Catholic Church in general, notably after the openness occasioned by late Pope John Paul II’s visit to Romania. This rapprochement was however matched by a strong opposition from some hierarchs, monachal or lay circles. Not few were those who wished almost all the bridges with other Christian confessions burnt, and, surprisingly, and most notably, with Catholics. The metropolitan bishop of Cluj, a fervent anti-Catholic, has maintained without any problem excellent relations with a Lutheran eparchy from Germany, whose financial support the local Archbishopric enjoyed not once, while venting his rage at the Greek-catholic hierarchs or the papal nuntio. The Catholics inspire fear through the prestige of a Church that is not only well organized but also bi-millennial, the only one able to compete with the spiritual richness of Orthodoxy.
Some take an alarmist approach to such competition, as they regard it as the premise for mass apostasy, while others, a lot fewer, see it as both stimulating and an exercise in convergence.
What the synod communiqué does not specify is the reason for the guilt which the two Orthodox hierarchs assumed. It may be that the discussions between the members of the Holy Synod brought to surface some relevant differences in view as well. The extreme positions are, on one hand, that of rejecting en masse the legitimacy of the Catholic Sacraments and that of a tactical adjustment to the conservatism of the masses. If the Catholic Church is treated as ‘heretical’ (which actually means separated from Truth God), the sacramental grace is therefore implicitly denied. Without the full truth, there cannot be any Eucharist, the most radical voices say. At the opposite end there are those who regard dogmatic firmness look with some detachment, and hold the time is not yet for true sacramental intercommunity. They see the two hierarchs guilty mainly for the confusion they created in the minds of the Orthodox, confused by such untimely gestures. The issue of the catholic ‘heresy’ is yet to be dealt with. Only a pan-Orthodox Synod would stand the legitimate authority to have its say on the matter at hand. Otherwise, there runs the risk for the frail Orthodox solidarity to get lost through uncorrelated stances. Moreover, not just the legitimacy of any ecumenical openness would be brutally suspended (as is the case with the open denunciation of ‘heresy’), but it would also lead to a spiral of violence which has seen so many flare-ups over the past millennium. Although the separation in 1054 AD was a schism, not a heresy (a distinction of essence, circumscribing the reasons to a secondary level), the dogmatic evolution by the two Churches registered further divergences that even if today are not so exacerbated as they used to, cannot be played down either. On the other hand, to devalue the Catholic Eucharist would stand proof to an unbearable arrogance towards a Church that went through so many painful moments in order to survive over time. Yet, the Eucharist is not some ‘merchandise’ which only needs to have its divine quality checked, but a special grace-inspired communion, the vector of an eschatological dynamic.
The synod decision avoided any mistake. There have been many reasons for it, yet, it was the fair assessment of the deed that proved decisive, yet without any obscure intentions. The two hierarchs were wrong, yet they did so not for the sake of a schism or as a treason gesture against the Orthodoxy. Other hierarchs would have wanted to avail of this opportunity in order to settle some accounts, while others would have wanted to turn back the page of ecumenical openness. The thoughts about a ‘revolution’ in the Synod were also there, with the defrocking of the two hierarchs as only the preamble for similar action against others who carried even more weight. The Patriarch himself could be found on such lists. Still, such punishments would have created some dangerous precedents and, in the long term, instability more than anything else. At the same time, it should not have been proper for the Holy Synod to yield to the ‘thirst for blood’ of the masses stirred by some, as the majority argument has proved rather deceiving over time. However, relevant debates are likely to continue, and ecumenical relations may require a new ground.
by Catalin Bogdan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
published in issue 4222 page 1 at 2008-07-11
(C) 2000-2007 Nine o'Clock,
The Web Edition - Your English Language Daily [e]Newspaper
Thank you for visiting us, and do come back tomorrow for fresh news and entertainment.
Last update: 12-07-2008
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.