Politics in Orthodox Christianity
In
the mind of the general populace Christianity may broadly be understood as the
religious tradition devoted to Jesus Christ, which today is most readily
identified with a variety of churches and denominations. Furthermore, followers
of Christ would logically be known as Christians. Beyond that, however, it would
be difficult for most people to keep track of the distinctions within the
Christian tradition, even on the denominational level. Particularly with
reference to the Orthodox branch of Christianity, a clear, concise definition is
in order.
Defining
“Orthodox Christianity” is indeed a very difficult task. At a time when the
very attribute (“orthodox”) is widely understood as having more or less
negative connotations, what can we identify as the defining attributes of the
“Orthodox Church?” In western theological and academic circles Orthodox
Christianity has become known through ecumenical discussions, especially within
the World Council of Churches, involving Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox
Christians. Some scholars used to identify Orthodoxy either as a kind of Roman
Catholicism without the pope, or as a kind of Protestantism with an episcopacy
(hierarchy of governance through bishops). Certainly to most Protestants from
the "evangelical" stream of the Christian tradition, but sometimes
also those from the "ecumenical" one, the “Orthodox Church” has a
negative old-world connotation. For them, Orthodox Christianity has come to
signify either stagnation in church life, strict dogmatic confessionalism,
inflexibility and unreadiness to adapt to modern situations, or to deal with
politics in a comprehensible way. At best Orthodoxy is an “eastern
phenomenon” vis-a-vis the “western modern mentality” and perhaps
theological and academic process.
Orthodox
Christianity is normally defined in confessional or denominational terms, i.e.
as the Eastern branch of Christianity, which was separated from the West around
the beginning of the second millennium CE. In the Oxford Dictionary of the
Christian Church the Orthodox Church is described as “a family of
Churches, situated mainly in Eastern Europe: each member Church is independent
in its internal administration, but all share the same faith and are in
communion with one another, acknowledging the honorary primacy of the Patriarch
of Constantinople.” In general, most textbooks of church history with a
western perspective make little or no reference to Eastern Orthodoxy after the
Great Schism between Eastern and Western churches in 1054 CE – or at least
after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 CE. With regard to our subject of
politics the general impression of most scholars from all church traditions that
underwent modernism is that for a very long period of time what actually
characterized Eastern Orthodoxy was an intolerable subservience of church to the
state. Another way of looking at is that the church adapted to the existing
world order, resulting in church and society penetrating and permeating each
other. At the same time, however, others insist that the Eastern Orthodox Church
established itself in the world as an institution focused almost exclusively on
other-worldly salvation.
Reinforced
by recent developments, both these contradictory assessments of Orthodox
Christianity hold some truth, but at the same time neither is completely
accurate. The former view was reinforced by the political attitude of almost all
the so-called “Orthodox” nations in the near past (e.g., Russia, Greece),
which actually gave the impression of a nationalistic inclination of the
Orthodox Church. The latter view, found in the writings of some Orthodox
theologians, lays disproportionate stresses on the mystical aspect of Orthodoxy.
It should be noted that these writers are mostly immigrants from
pre-revolutionary Russia (before 1917 CE), who came in contact with the West
after a long period of separation. In a desperate attempt to preserve their
ancient Orthodox identity surrounded by a modern world quite alien to them, they
underline the mystical aspect of Orthodox Christianity to western Christians.
However, today both these one-sided presentations of Orthodox Christianity (i.e.
nationalistic and mystical) are seriously questioned.
In
order to give an accurate description of Orthodox Christianity we need to
redefine the actual understanding of the term to a radical (getting back to the
root meaning) degree, because current usage is so misleading. According to most
serious interpreters of this tradition, if we examine the derivation of the term
Orthodox Christianity it refers to the wholeness of the people of God who share
the right conviction (orthe + doxa = right opinion) concerning the event
of God's salvation in Christ and his Church. In addition, this label encompasses
the notion of right expression, or right practice (orthopraxia) of the
Christian faith. Orthodoxia leads to the maximum possible application in Orthopraxia
of charismatic life in the freedom of the Holy Spirit, the spirit of God, in all
aspects of daily social and cosmic life. Everybody is invited by Orthodoxy to
transcend confessions and inflexible institutions without necessarily denying
them. Some Orthodox theologians even insist that Orthodoxy is not to be
identified only with those belonging to the canonical Orthodox Churches in the
historical sense and with all their limitations and shortcomings. After all,
initially this term was not given to any historical branch of Christianity, but
to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as a whole over against the
heretics who, of their own choice, split from the main body of the Church. The
term is exclusive for all those, who willingly fall away from the historical
stream of life of the One Church, but it is inclusive for those who profess
their spiritual belonging to that stream. The term, therefore, has more or less ecclesial
(having to do with the essence of what it means to be a church) rather that confessional
connotations. And for this reason one can argue that the fundamental principles
of Christian spirituality, of social and political theory, are the same in the
East and in the West.
Nevertheless,
that ecclesial charismatic community has had a certain historical manifestation,
and has developed concrete political viewpoints, which need to be extracted from
a certain background, from certain texts, from certain sources. Attempting to
accomplish this, however, we encounter some major difficulties.
On
what ground and from what sources can one accurately establish an Orthodox
viewpoint? Roman Catholics have the decisions produced by the relatively recent
council (1962-65) known as Vatican II to guide them, the Orthodox do not have an
equivalent collection of authoritative statements. The Lutherans have an
Augsburg Confession of their own; the Orthodox do not, and Orthodox Christianity
also lacks the equivalent of a Luther or Calvin, to mention just two
spokespersons from the Protestant Reformation, who could give Protestant
Christians their theological identity. With regard specifically to politics and
social life in general the Catholic tradition has certain encyclicals and
declarations, such as Rerum novarum (1891), or Gaudium et spes
(1965), and more recently Justitia in mundo (1971). Similarly, Protestant
denominations in the wider sense have their Confessions and from time to time
certain decisions taken by their respective collective bodies. This has never
been the case with the Orthodox, until a very recent exceptional case with
regard to the Russian Orthodox Church, to which we will return later. In
contrast the only authoritative sources that Orthodox Christianity possesses are
in fact common to all Christians: the Bible and the Tradition, although they
have never been considered by Orthodox Christians as “sources” in the strict
sense, at least in the way they are thought of in the West. How can one
establish a distinctly Orthodox view on a basis which in fact is common to
non-Orthodox as well?
Some
Orthodox, insist that defining Orthodox Christianity is not a matter of drawing
from special sources, but of interpreting the sources the Orthodox share with
the rest of Christianity and partly with Judaism. In other words it is a matter
of theological presuppositions, which suggests a certain problematic and method
not always familiar to the non-Orthodox. Naturally then, all their social,
ethical and theological viewpoints, and politics in particular, come only as the
logical consequence of these presuppositions. However, even the essence of
Orthodox Christianity, vis-a-vis Western Christianity in its entirety, i.e.
Catholic and Protestant, is even beyond such theological presuppositions. After
all, the main theological difference, which resulted in the eventual split
between Eastern and Western Christianity was a different understanding of truth.
Eastern Christianity – especially in later Byzantine antiquity – presupposes
a concept of revelation substantially different from that held in the West under
the influence of Aristotle. In particular, under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit, they believe that in the Church every Christian, and the saint in
particular, possesses the privilege and the opportunity of seeing (theorein)
and experiencing the truth. Because the concept of theologia (i.e.,
theology) in Cappadocian and Antiochean thinking was inseparable from theoria
(i.e. contemplation), theology could not be – as it was at least in western
high scholasticism – a rational deduction from “revealed” premises, i.e.
from Scripture or from the statements of an ecclesiastical magisterium; rather
it was a vision experienced by the faithful, whose authenticity was of course to
be checked against the witness of Scripture and Tradition. A true theologian as
understood in later Byzantine thought was for the most part the one who saw and
experienced the content of theology. Theological inquiry and insight were
considered to belong not to the intellect alone, though rigorous thinking of
course is not excluded from the process, but to the “eyes of the Spirit”,
which place the whole human being – intellect, emotions and even senses – in
contact with the divine existence. In Orthodox Christianity the “truth” is
inseparable from the “communion.”
Therefore,
it would be more accurate to say that Orthodox Christianity is a way of life,
hence the importance of its liturgical tradition. It is exactly for this reason
that the Liturgy plays, such a prominent role in the theology of almost all
Orthodox Christians in modern times. It is widely held by the Orthodox that the
liturgical dimension is perhaps the only safe criterion, in ascertaining what
might be considered unique or peculiar to Orthodox theology. Given the
centrality of the Liturgy, I would suggest that the Orthodox Church is first of
all a worshipping community. Worship comes first, doctrine and discipline
second. As an old Latin saying goes, lex orandi lex credendi, “The rule
of prayer dictates the rule of belief,” or “As we pray, so we believe.”
The lex orandi (the law or rule of prayer) has a privileged priority in
the life of the Christian Church. The lex credendi (the law or rule of
belief) depends on the devotional experience and vision of the Church, or more
precisely on the authentic (i.e. liturgical) identity of the Church. The
question, therefore, about the principal sources on which one can draw to
describe this religious system’s views about politics, are much more complex
than with the rest of Christianity.
The
heart of Orthodox liturgy, as in all or almost all Christian traditions, is the
Eucharist, which is called by the Orthodox “Divine Liturgy.” The Orthodox
Church has consistently accepted the priority of the eucharistic experience
over all theological views and convictions, the priority of communion
over faith or belief, and as a matter of fact the priority of ecclesiology
over theology in its regular meaning. One of the most distinguishing
features of Orthodox Christianity is that, contrary to many western religious
systems that have adapted to modernism, Orthodoxy has attempted to distance
itself as much as possible from the dominant post-Enlightenment and
post-Reformation paradigm that most theologians tacitly accept. Theologians who
have a modernist bent believe that the essence of Christianity is to be found in
the articulation of theological statements, based on Scripture, Tradition, or
other authoritative pronouncements, and that these truths are upheld by church
institutions and promoted by the authority of clergy and scholars. For the
Orthodox, who by the way have not yet undergone modernism, what constitutes the
core of Christian faith cannot be extracted from the expressed theological
views, from a certain depositum fidei (depository of faith), be it the
Bible, the Tradition (or both), the writings of the Fathers, the canons and even
the decisions of the Councils. Whereas that outlook inevitably led the western
Church to adopt some kind of magisterium, be it hierarchical or
scholarly, Orthodox Christianity took a different tack. It is mainly for this
reason that the criterion most widely held among Orthodox of our time in
defining the Orthodox Church’s response to all ethical, moral, social and
political issues is undoubtedly the eucharistic approach. Only in the
Eucharist does the church become God’s people, Church in its fullest sense.
Even
with Orthodoxy’s emphasis on the Eucharist, I will start my discussion of
politics with Jesus Christ, the anointed Messiah. All social ethical issues, and
the understanding of politics in particular, are based and determined in
Orthodox Christianity – as in all Christian traditions – by the teaching,
life and work of Jesus of Nazareth. His teaching, however, and especially his
life and work, cannot properly be understood without reference to the
eschatological expectations of Judaism. Without getting sidetracked by the
complexities of Jewish eschatology, one can very briefly say, that this
eschatology was interwoven with the idea of the coming of a Messiah, who in the
“last days” of history (“the eschaton”) would establish his
Kingdom by calling the dispersed and afflicted people of God into one place to
become one body united around him. As it was expressed in the prophetic
tradition of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Joel 3:1; Isaiah 2:2, 59:21; Ezekiel.
36:24), the start of the eschatological period will be marked by the gathering
of all the nations and the descent of God’s Spirit to the sons and the
daughters of God. One particular statement in the Gospel of John about the
Messiah's role is extremely important. In Chapter 11 the writer interprets the
words of the Jewish High priest by affirming that “he prophesied that Jesus
should die . . . not for the nation only but to gather into one [emphasis
added] the children of God who are scattered abroad” (John 11:51-52).
Throughout
the Gospels Jesus Christ identifies himself with this eschatological Messiah. We
see this in the various Messianic titles he chose for himself, at least as
witnessed by the most primitive sources of the Christian tradition (“Son of
man,” “Son of God,” most of which had a collective meaning, whence the
Christology of “corporate personality”). We see it as well in the parables
of the Kingdom (e.g., Matthew 13, Mark 4, and Luke 8), which summarize his
teaching, the point of which is to proclaim that his coming initiates the new
world of God’s Rule. In the Lord's Prayer, but also in his conscious overt
acts (e.g. the selection of twelve disciples, symbolizing Israel’s twelve
tribes), Jesus introduces the eschatological agenda. In short, Christ identified
himself with the Messiah of the eschaton, who would be the center of the
gathering of the dispersed people of God.
It
was on this radical eschatological teaching of the historical Jesus about
God’s Rule that the early Christian community has developed its ecclesiology
and determined its “political” theory (in the wider sense). Modern biblical
research has shown that Jesus’ expectation about the rule of God moves
dialectically between the “already” and the “not yet”; in other words,
begins already in the present but will be completed in its final authentic form
in the eschaton. In the first two decades after the crucifixion of Jesus the
Christian community understood its existence as the perfect and genuine
expression of the people of God. With a series of terms taken from the Hebrew
Scriptures the early Christian community believed that it was the “Israel of
God” (Galatians 6:16), the “saints” (Acts 9:32, 41; 26:10; Romans 1:7;
8:27; 12:13; 15:25), “the elect” (Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12 etc.), “the
chosen race” and “the royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9); namely the holy
people of God (laos tou theou), for whom all the promises of the Bible
were to be fulfilled at the eschata. During this constructive period the
concept in which the early Christian community understood its identity was that
of a people and not of an organization, or even of a religious system. An
examination of both the First (Old) and the Second (New) Testament terminology
makes this quite clear. The chosen people of God were an ‘am (in
Hebrew, especially in the prophets) or a laos (in Greek), whereas the
people of the outside world were designated by the Hebrew term goyim and
the Greek ethne (cf. Acts 15:14).
The
second generation after Pentecost is certainly characterized by the theological
contribution of St. Paul. He takes over the above charismatic notion of the
Church, but he gives it in addition a universal and ecumenical character. To the
Church belong all human beings, Jews and Gentiles; for the latter have been
joined to the same tree of the people of God (Romans 11:13ff). The Church, as
the new Israel, is thus no longer constituted on grounds of external criteria of
Judaism (e.g., circumcision, sacrifices), but on her faith in Jesus Christ (cf.
Romans 9:6). The phrase, however, which characterizes Pauline ecclesiology is body
of Christ. With this metaphorical expression St. Paul was able to express
the charismatic nature of the Church by means of the Semitic concept of
corporate personality. He emphasized that a variety of gifts exist in the
Church, exercised by the individual members of the community, and necessary for
the building up and the nurturing of this body, Christ alone being its only head
and authority.
The
understanding of politics, and the Church’s social responsibility in general,
stems exactly from this conception of the Church. The people of God is an
eschatological, dynamic, radical, and corporate reality that struggled to
authentically witness to the Kingdom of God, i.e. to manifest God’s Rule,
“on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10 par). The Apostles, Jesus of
Nazareth’s disciples, were commissioned to proclaim neither a specific
political theory, nor a set of given religious convictions, doctrines, or moral
commands. Instead, they were to announce the coming Kingdom, the Gospel, i.e.
the Good News of a new eschatological reality, with the crucified and
resurrected Christ as its center. He is the incarnate Logos (or word) of
God, who nevertheless through the presence of the Holy Spirit continues to dwell
among human beings, guiding them to transform the present – “fallen” and
unjust – world order, and pave the way toward the ideal and otherworldly
Kingdom of God.
On
the basis of this Kingdom reality, therefore, all faithful Christians were
called – not so much as isolated individuals, but as a corporate ecclesial
entity – to behave in this world “politically.”[1]
Because they understood themselves to be carrying on the line of Israel, the
Early Christians took on the political responsibilities required of the chosen
race of the people of God. They were considered a “royal priesthood” by
reason of the fact that all of them, without exception have priestly and
spiritual authority to practice in the diaspora (or the dispersed
community of faith) the work of the priestly class. The fact that not just some
special cast, such as the priests or levites, i.e. people with certain political
and religious authority, were responsible for this “eschatological holy
nation” at the same time reminded Christians to be worthy of their election
through their exemplary life and works. That is why they were called to walk
toward unity (“so that they may become perfectly one”, John 17:23),
to abandon all deeds of darkness and to do justice to the society at large.
We
note that the Church was able within a few generations of the first century CE,
based largely on the important contribution of the Greek Fathers of the golden
age (second-third centuries CE), to come up with the doctrine of Trinity,
and much later to further develop the important distinction between substance
and energies of the three persons of the Holy Trinity. According to some
historians, this was only possible because of the eschatological experience of koinonia
(fellowship, community) in the Eucharist (both vertical with its head, and
horizontal among the people of God, and by extension with all of humanity
through the Church’s mission), an experience which ever since continues to
constitute the only expression of the Church’s self-consciousness, its Mystery
par excellence.
No
one, of course, can deny that early enough in the history of the Christian
community, even from the time of St. Paul, there has been a “paradigm shift”
in the understanding of this act (Eucharist) of self-consciousness of community
as a koinonia of the eschata. The Christian community’s
enactment of the Eucharist was for them a manifestation of the coming Kingdom of
God in anticipation of the actual eschatological event. Regardless of the
reasons, over the centuries there has been a shift of the theological center of
gravity of Christianity from the (eucharistic) experience to the (Christian)
message, from eschatology to Christology (and further and
consequently to soteriology), from the event (the Kingdom of
God), to the words and story about the bearer and center of
this event (Christ, and more precisely his sacrifice on the cross).
However, the Eucharist (the theia koinonia) has always remained the sole
expression of the Church’s identity. This koinonia dimension of the
Eucharist recently has been quite strongly reaffirmed by Orthodox Christianity,
with its indications that not only the identity of the Church, but all its
expressions (structure, authority, mission etc.) and actions (ethics, social and
moral, and consequently politics) are in fact relational.
To
sum up: if one wants to approach, and reflect on, any specific issue, like
politics, from a distinctly Orthodox perspective, it is the eucharistic theology
in its broad sense that should guide his/her effort. Of course, one would expect
from Orthodox Christianity, as from all other religious systems, that they will
offer final solutions to common problems, and inevitably to exercise some kind
of legitimate power, and not only present affirmations of conscience. But the
caution to keep in mind with Orthodoxy is that the entire ethical issue, i.e.
the problem of overcoming the evil in the world, is basically understood neither
as a moral nor as a doctrinal issue; it is primarily (and for some even
exclusively) understood as an ecclesial one. The moral and social
responsibilities of the Church (both as an institution and also of her
individual members), as their primary witnessing acts, is the logical
consequence of their ecclesial self-consciousness.
Given
how differently the Orthodox tradition views the relationship between the
religious and the ethical, it behooves us to begin our discussion of its theory
of politics with a couple basic questions. First of all, “Does Orthodox
Christianity have a theory of politics and the social order?” Secondly, “Is
politics a tangential and unimportant subject?” These questions cannot be
answered by a simple “yes” or “no.” Orthodox Christianity in dealing
with the problem of politics in the past has come to a solution, according to
which religion and polity were never divorced or even separated
from each other, despite the lack of any visible spectacular victory of the
Church over the empire, and the detrimental impact of the imperial forces on
ecclesiastical affairs (dethronements and exiles of bishops and Patriarchs).[2]
Most Orthodox Churches nowadays have this model of “in-and-out-of-politics”,
the model of “symphonia” or “synallelia,” fully developed and elaborated
in pre-modernity, still as their ideal, trying to impose it as far as they can
into modern constitutions of modern democratic states.[3]
Only in the Orthodox diaspora have there been serious attempts to adapt the
Orthodox ecclesiology into the modern context.[4]
For
an explanation to this close relation between religion and polity
in Orthodox Christianity one has to go back to ancient Greece, where religion
was understood as the cultic life of the polis, never conceivable outside
it. Being ideologically shaped (more
than any other branch of Christianity) on the Greek culture, this religious
system not only borrowed the word ecclesia, the assembly of the citizens,
from Greek political life to denominate itself; it also developed its identity
very much embedded in the whole society. Religion as a separate sphere has never
found a solid footing in the theological thinking of the Orthodox Church. It
would have been impossible to relegate the Church, holistic in conception –
and relational rather than confessional in character – to a private sphere in
civil society. This idea of privatization of the Church, together with
individualism – which for historical reasons was adopted in the historical
Protestant Churches – was developed in modernity. There the cardinal idea,
which still shapes our modern western culture, is that religion should be
separate from the state altogether, being a matter of individual conscience, in
an attempt to provide the basis for social peace and stability. In part this was
a reaction to the religious wars in Europe between Protestants and Catholics in
the early seventeenth century CE. At the same time, however, the eschatological
inclination of Orthodoxy gives the impression that politics may be a tangential
and unimportant issue.
In
recent years, and despite the fact that the eucharistic approach to all
aspects of Orthodox Church life has been repeatedly reaffirmed, the Orthodox
have drafted a number of official documents to be presented for final approval
to the forthcoming Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church. One of these
documents/decisions, entitled “The Contribution of the Orthodox Church in
establishment of peace, justice, freedom, fellowship and love among the peoples,
and the lifting of racial and other discriminations,” deals indirectly with
socio-political problems. Finally officially approved in the third Pan-Orthodox
Pre-conciliar Consultation by all Orthodox Autocephali Churches,[5]
this is a first attempt of a theological response from an Orthodox perspective
to social issues pertinent to modern challenges. More precisely focused on our
subject is an even more recent document, issued by the Russian Orthodox Church,
entitled: The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church.[6]
This document may not have a Pan-orthodox canonical status,[7]
but accurately describes the present status of the Church-State relations in the
Orthodox world:
“Today
the Orthodox Church performs her service of God and people in various countries.
In some of them she represents the nation-wide confession (Greece, Rumania,
Bulgaria), while in others, which are multinational, the religion of the ethnic
majority (Russia). In still other countries, those who belong to the Orthodox
Church comprise a religious minority surrounded by either heterodox Christians
(Finland, Poland, USA) or people of other religions (Japan, Syria, Turkey). In
some small countries the Orthodox Church has the status of the state religion
(Cyprus, Greece, Finland), while in other countries it is separated from state.
There are also differences in the concrete legal and political contexts in which
the Local Orthodox Churches live. They all, however, build both their internal
order and relations with the government on the commandments of Christ, teaching
of the apostles, holy canons and two-thousand-year-long historical experience
and in may situation find an opportunity to pursue their God-commanded goals,
thus revealing their other-worldly nature, their heavenly, divine, origin.”[8]
Having
said all this, it is important to underline that some of the theological
differences between the Orthodox East and the Christian West were, and in some
cases still are, related to the way the Church – as the image of the expected
Kingdom of God – was/is directly engaged with temporal and secular matters,
i.e. with politics. It has been argued time and again that toward the end of the
first millennium the Church in the West adopted, or was forced to accept, a kind
of Church-State relationship on a legal basis, namely as a relationship between
two distinct institutions, two distinct and independent “temporal”
authorities. Thus, she moved away from the model of symphonia, or synallelia,
and adopted the theory of the “two swords.” In certain critical moments she
even argued that, whereas the priestly authority is directly derived from God,
the secular authority can only be assumed through the priestly one.
Even
if such political views are no longer officially supported in Catholic
Christianity, one can safely argue that during the second millennium – the
millennium of the tragic Schism between Western and Eastern Christianity – the
emphasis of western theology was more on the historical dimension of the
Christian ecclesial identity, thus being more sensitive on ethics, constantly
reminding the Church of its responsibility for the world. At the other end of
the political spectrum, the Orthodox Church has developed a clear awareness of
the eschatological dimension of Christianity, being in fact the only
ecclesiastical institution, which always emphasizes the eschatological identity
of the Church, sometimes even disincarnating her historical manifestation from
history.
It
was mainly for this reason that many of us[9]
are in search of a synthesis between eastern and western spirituality, believing
that a dynamic encounter will enrich both traditions. After all, the authentic
catholicity of the Church (in terms not so much of ecclesiology, but of
spirituality, of ethics, and in particular of politics) must include both East
and West. Only through such a synthesis can the perennial problem of the tension
between history and eschaton in Christianity – and by extension of politics
– find a proper and permanent solution.
Quite
simply, therefore, this is the message of Orthodox Christianity’s politics, no
matter how strange or vague this may sound!
Turning
next to the question “through what medium does Orthodox Christianity make its
point,” the answer is certainly: through the eucharistic liturgy,
understood as a glimpse and a foretaste of the eschatological Kingdom of God. In
her liturgy however, the Orthodox Church clearly and in a very stylish and
sophisticated way re-enacts a story: the story of God’s creation of
human destiny and condition, of God’s abundant love for his creation (and
therefore, his intervention in history), his continuous care for his people, by
giving them the Law and by making a covenant with them, and finally by sending
them his only-begotten Son, who inaugurated his Kingdom on earth, experienced in
history by hosts of saints in his Church, but expected in its fullness at the eschaton.
In Orthodox Christianity this story is not told as a past event, but as a
present reality, as personal narrative with far-reaching consequences of the
social order of corporate community. It is for this reason that the political
role of her members starts after the liturgy, in the meta-liturgy, the Liturgy
after the liturgy, in which the Orthodox are sent forth “in peace” to
give witness to this ideal by any means, including politics. Those means,
nevertheless, have never been clearly defined (except in a very vague way, i.e.
that they should not deviate from the Gospel, as proclaimed by Jesus of
Nazareth, his disciples and the hosts of saints thereafter). This is partly
because almost all geographical areas, where this religion has historically
flourished, have never undergone the process of modernity. As I will assert more
fully below, the relationship between religion and politics has become an issue
only after the Enlightenment.
We
have stated above that, although the principal sources of Orthodox Christianity
are the same with the rest of Christianity (Bible and Tradition), the special
nuance is its liturgical (i.e. eucharistic) dimension. To put it in a different
way, compared with the West the Orthodox tradition underlines more sharply the
eschatological dimension of the Christian faith. In that respect Orthodox
Christianity claims to have followed the Early Church, which entered history not
so much as a “doctrine,” but as a new otherworldly “social order,” a new
“community.” Time and again early Christians insisted that their true
citizenship (politeuma) was not of this world:
“our
citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a
Savior.” (Philippians 3:20)
“here
we have no lasting city (polin), but we are looking for the city that is
to come.” (Hebrews 13:14)
And
not only this; the members of the early church were almost always addressed as
strangers and traveling through (paroikoi and parepoidemoi 1 Peter
2:11) this world. Although the main issue in politics is who does what to whom,
these tasks were consciously, although in certain cases reluctantly, transmitted
to the lay members of the Church, and in time to the secular authorities. This
migration of political responsibility results from the incompatibility of using
even legitimate force with being and reflecting that glorious and ideal Kingdom,
which the Church (especially her priestly members) strives to do. Only in
special situations, such as when the people of an organized nation request the
head of their local Orthodox Church to assume for a while leadership in secular
matters, only then does one find an Orthodox ecclesiastical figure engaged in
the politics of this world. The guiding principle for those tasks, both for
those belonging to the laity (which by the way is considered in Orthodoxy an
ecclesiastical priestly order, without which no liturgical service is possible)
and for those coming from the ordained priesthood, was Jesus Christ’s
admonition to his disciples:
“The
rulers of the Gentiles exercise lordship over their subjects; and those in
authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather let the
greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.”
(Luke 22:25-26 par.)
Recall
that the Orthodox Church considers as her main task to make manifest
proleptically (or in anticipation of the promised future reality) in the
Eucharist this new, ideal order of the coming Kingdom. To this end the faithful
literally are sent at the end of the service to “go forth in peace”
to transmit the experience gained in the Liturgy – even as a glimpse and as a
foretaste – of that glorious expected moment. In this respect the Orthodox
faith in fact embraces all aspects of human life. The ultimate basis for such a
concern for life and for all that has been created in this world comes from the
fundamental doctrine of creation, according to which God – ex nihilo
(out of nothing) – made all that exists and “saw that it was good”
(Genesis 1:4,10,13,18). Because, however, God’s creation was corrupted by sin,
it became necessary for all of creation to be transformed, ("that the
creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the
freedom of the glory of the children of God,” Romans 8: 21), to be
renewed, to become a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians
6:15), a process which started with the incarnation of God Himself in Jesus
Christ. The Kingdom of God he proclaimed did not have an eschatological
character alone, but also an earthly one. And his people, the Church, the
“true” Israel (Galatians 6:16) was in fact “a city,” a polis, a
new and peculiar “polity,” she was more than “a church,” just as ancient
Israel was at once a “church” and a “nation.”
It
was for that reason that in the early stages of their existence, the Christians
were suspected of civic indifference, even of “misanthropy,” odium
generis humani (probably contrasted with the alleged “philanthropy of the
Roman empire”). Origen, accepting responding to a similar accusation by
Celsus, insisted that the Christians “have another system of allegiance (allo
systema tes patridos).”[10]
And Tertullian even went to the extreme, when he declared that for Christians
“nothing is more alien than public affairs (nec ulla magis res aliena quam
publica).”[11]
A more balanced position, however, we find in an anonymous letter from the early
years of the second century CE. In the famous Letter to Diognetus the
Christians are presented as living in the world, but not being of
the world:
“while
they dwell in the cities of Greeks and Barbarians, as the lot of each is cast,
the structure of their polity is peculiar and paradoxical. . . . Every
fatherland is a foreign land. . . . Their conversation is on earth, but their
citizenship is in heaven.”[12]
All
these are common heritage of both eastern and western Christianity. Where
Orthodox Christianity seems to differ from both the Catholic and the Protestant
point of view with regard to politics, is the famous “Byzantine synthesis,”
a unique experiment in political matters, which most Orthodox Churches and
Orthodox societies (some even use the awkward term “Orthodox nations”)
unfortunately dream to revive, even in the age of modernity and post-modernity.
This
experiment was the first Orthodox adventure in Christian politics. According to
a renowned Orthodox historian and theologian, George Florovsky, “it was an
unsuccessful and probably an unfortunate experiment. Yet it should be judged on
its own terms.”[13]
It was wrongly labelled as a “Ceasaropapism” (alluding to the combination of
the two roles of Ceasar and pope) on the assumption that in Byzantium the Church
ceased to exist as an independent “political” institution, since the emperor
became with the agreement of the Church her actual ruler. The emperors were
indeed rulers in the Christian society, also in religious matters, but never
rulers over the Church.[14]
In fact, this solution to the perennial problem of the relationship between
Church and State, initiated by the overall policy of Constantine the Great,[15]
had its origin in Pauline theology and his understanding of the role of all
secular ruling authorities. The ruling secular authorities are understood as
being instituted by God, and therefore are of divine origin:
“Let
every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority
except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.
Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those
who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but
to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and
you will receive its approval; for it is God's servant for your good. But if you
do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the
sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of
conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are
God's servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them – taxes
to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect
is due, honor to whom honor is due.” (Romans 13:1-7)
It
was exactly for that reason that in the so-called Pastoral Epistles the faithful
are urged even to pray for governing authorities:
“I
urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for
everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a
quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity.” (1 Timothy 2:1-2)
This
compromised solution to all the problems dealing with power and the authorities
of this world is in effect in agreement with Jesus of Nazareth’s clever answer
to the religious authorities of his day:
"Give
to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are
God's” (Mark 12:17 par.).[16]
The
response of early Christians to this dilemma, i.e. how to accommodate their
simultaneously belonging to the secular and to the eschatological world, was not
unanimous. Paul’s accommodating views in dealing with the secular authorities
are seemingly in sharp contrast with the more radical views expressed by the
author of the book of Revelation (ch. 13). There the secular Roman authorities
are compared with the beast, in contrast to the eschatological identity of the
Church as the “New Jerusalem,” making any dealing and connection of the
people of God with the hostile secular authorities impossible.[17]
I have argued in other related studies that the solution to our problem, offered
by Paul – and in fact to all other social issues – might not have been as
idealistic or radical, as in the rest of the New Testament. It was,
nevertheless, a realistic solution of social integration of the
charismatic (and eschatological) people of God to the society at large.[18]
This
solution reached its climax in the sixth century CE. It is expressed in a more
detailed way in the preface of Justinian’s famous Sixth Novel, which is
a summary of the basic principles of the Byzantine political system, and which
has greatly influenced the political views of Orthodox Christianity, even to
this day.
“There
are two major gifts which God has given unto men of His supernal clemency, the
priesthood and the imperial authority – hierosyne and basileia; sacerdotium
and imperium. Of these, the
former is concerned with things divine; the latter presides over the human
affairs and takes care of them. Proceeding from the same source, both adorn
human life. Nothing is of greater concern for the emperors as the dignity of the
priesthood, so that priests may in their turn pray to God for them. Now, if one
is in every respect blameless and filled with confidence toward God, and the
other does rightly and properly maintain in order the commonwealth to it, there
will be a certain fair harmony established to it, there will be a certain fair
harmony established, which will furnish whatsoever may be needful for mankind.
We therefore are highly concerned for the true doctrines inspired by God for the
dignity of priests. We are convinced that, if they maintain their dignity, God
will bestow great benefits on us, and we shall firmly hold whatever we now
posses, and in addition shall acquire those things that we have not yet secured.
A happy ending always crowns those things, which were undertaken in a proper
manner, acceptable to God. This is the case, when sacred canons are carefully
observed, which the glorious Apostles, the venerable eye – witnesses and
ministers of the Divine World, have handed down to us, and the holy Fathers have
kept and explained.”[19]
The
Sixth Novel, of course, does not speak of Church and State, but of two
ministries. And in addition it was a secular (legal) not a religious (Christian)
document. There the imperium is at once an authority and a service. This
model, very often called “symphony”, or synallelia, was further
developed in the famous Epanagoge, a constitutional document of the ninth
century CE, most probably prepared by Photius, the famous Patriarch of
Constantinople.[20]
"The
temporal power and the priesthood relate to each other as body and soul; they
are necessary for state order just as body and soul are necessary in a living
man. It is in their linkage and harmony that the well-being of a state
lies".[21]
In
the Epanagoge, however, we notice a slight centralization of power. In
the place of the imperium and sacerdotium we now have the Emperor
and the Patriarch,[22]
not as rivals, but as allies, both parts of a single organism, both essentials
for the prosperity of the people. This model has helped the Church in the East
to turn down the temptation to acquire temporal secular authority, and avoid the
temptation to be “clericalized.” In addition, Orthodox Christianity did not
feel the need to develop the theory of the “two swords,” which held such
appeal in the West. This may be due to a more classical Greek philosophical
background in her ontological thinking, compared to the more Roman, i.e. legal,
heritage of Western Christianity. It is to be noted that the famous programmatic
model and vision of De civitate Dei, by Augustine of Hippo (d. 430 CE),
which was so influential in Western Christianity, did not play a decisive role
in the development of Orthodox Christianity’s political theory.
On
the other hand, this enmeshment between Church and State, very tight indeed,
which has caused so many tensions and even clashes (e.g. in the case of iconoclastic
controversy and later in the case of imperial unionist policy), was not without
opposition. For instance the emergence of monasticism has helped Eastern
Orthodox Christianity – not without problems of course – to keep the balance
between the eschatological vision and the historical missionary engagement of
the Church. This is especially true in monasticism’s later development not as
an arm of the institutional Church (cf. some medieval orders of Roman
Catholicism), but rather as a strong reaction to it, as a constant reminder of
the eschatological character of the Church, and the eschatological dimension of
the Christian faith in general.[23]
History
has shown that Orthodox Churches have traditionally taken a tolerant attitude
toward nonbelievers by and large. One case in points is the crusaders, who found
the Orthodox in Constantinople unexpectedly and unacceptably tolerant toward the
Muslims. Similarly, more openness and hospitality has been granted by the
Orthodox to non-Christian “religious cousins” (e.g. in the case of the
expelled Jews from the Iberian peninsula in the sixteenth century CE). These
were not accidental occurrences, but the result of their trinitarian
understanding of mission, which goes beyond the “christocentric Christian
universalism” developed in the past by Western Christianity. Underlying its
response to nonbelievers, is the Orthodox Christianity’s twofold fundamental
missiological assumption about God: (a) the divine self, God’ s inner
life, is a life of communion; and (b) God’s involvement in history aims at drawing humanity and
creation in general into this communion with the very life of the divine being.
It is, perhaps for this reason that Orthodox Christianity has never developed a universal
proselytizing mission. Without relegating their mission to an optional task
and neglecting the imperative of bringing new converts to Christ, the Orthodox
normally direct their efforts towards the transmission of the life of communion
that exists in God, and not at the propagation of certain doctrines, or moral
and social norms.[24]
If
one carries this understanding of mission a little further, one can even argue
that the church’s purpose in this present fallen and sinful situation, worldly
politics does not actually involve the use of power and coercion that inevitably
includes legitimate violence. Rather the Orthodox understand their task to be
that of witnessing in a tolerant, loving and reconciling way the
proleptic experience of God’s rule (i.e. the Kingdom of God), gained in their
liturgical/eucharistic communal life. According to Orthodox theology, the
mission of the Church does not focus on the conversion of the “others” by
the spreading of the Gospel of the abundant love of God to the end of the world
(which inevitably leads to a “confessional and religious exclusiveness”).
Its mission is to serve in this multicultural and pluralistic world as the
witness of the Church’s eschatological (and certainly not institutional)
identity (this can be labelled “ecclesial inclusiveness”). That
understanding of mission has by and large prevented Orthodoxy from all kinds of
aggressive proselytism. For her, the real aim of evangelism has never been so
much bringing the nations and the people of other faiths to her own religious
"enclosure"; her real aim has always been to “let” the Spirit of
God use both the evangelizers and those to whom they bear witness, to bring
about God’s rule. According to this understanding, everything belongs to God,
and to his Kingdom; in more simple terms everything belongs to the new
eschatological reality, inaugurated of course in Jesus’ messianic work but
expected to reach its final stage at the end of history. The Church in her
historical manifestation does not administer all reality, as it was believed for
centuries in the West; she only prepares the way to that reality, being an icon
of it.
In
recent years, as a result of the effect of postmodernism and of the resurgence
of religion worldwide, some Orthodox societies (at least those with a powerful
institutional Church, like the Greek and the Russian) have shown signs of
willingness to allow their Churches to reassert their influence in both politics
and public life. This deprivatization of religion means that the ideal of
modernity to keep Church and State (or religion and society) separate,
relegating the former to the private or personal realm, and declaring the public
realm secular and free of all religious influence, is loosing ground. This is,
of course, a universal phenomenon, mainly due to the shortcomings of modernism.
The post-Enlightenment modern critical paradigm, which has undoubtedly shaped
our democratic political process, has over-rationalized everything from social
and public life to scholarship, from emotion to imagination, seeking to
over-control and over-limit the irrational, the aesthetic and even the sacred.
In its search to rationalize and historicize all, modernism has transformed not
only what we know and how we know it, but also how we understand ourselves
within that known world. Hence the desire in a wide circle of intellectuals (not
limited to scholars or even to theologians) for wholeness, for community, for
what in German is called Gemeinschaft, for an antidote to the
fragmentation and sterility of an overly technocratic society, and in the end
for post-modernism.
To
be honest, religion is far too important for human existence to be excluded from
politics; and this is undoubtedly both a threat and a hope. It is a threat if
the fundamentalists assume uncontrolled power, as in the case of September 11th
of the very first year of the third millennium. However, it is a hope if
religion can exercise its tremendous potential and power to bring back moral
values, and if recreate, and originate new images of what it means to be human
in a just, peaceful and sustainable universe. Nowadays this last option is being
seriously considered by the Orthodox, if not for anything else, at least because
the basic ecclesiological principles of their religious system are incompatible
with “individualism,” one of the pillars of modernity. There is a lot of
discussion that the old “Byzantine symphony” can again become a model of
Orthodox political theory, but this time not in terms of a symphony of the
Church with the State but directly with the citizens. And in addition, any such
“symphony” could not be implemented in isolation from the rest of
Christianity, but in cooperation with them, as an example of a “common
Christian witness.” Even people of other faiths, and established religions are
considered as partners on certain political issues, as has been shown by the
most recent initiatives of the primus inter pares Orthodox Patriarchal
see of Constantinople, but also of other autocephali Churches. In our small
global village, that mysterious universe, the values of God’s Kingdom are
common to all people of good will, religious or not! Only wicked people could
object their political implementation, provided of course that the basic
democratic rules are observed.
SUGGESTED
READINGS
On
Orthodox Christianity
Kallistos
(Timothy) WARE, The Orthodox Church, Penguin Books: Baltimore 1964 (and numerous subsequent
editions).
Vladimir
LOSSKY, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, Clarke: London 1957.
Georges
FLOROVSKY, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, Nordland:
Belmont 1972.
Jaroslav
PELIKAN, The Christian Tradition 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom
(600-1700), UCPress: Chicago 1974.
John MEYENDORFF,
Byzantine
Theology. Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes,
FU Press: New York 19741
/ SVS Press: Crestwood New York 19872.
Alexander
SCHMEMANN, Church,
World, Mission, SVS Press: Crestwood New York 1979.
John
ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion. Studies in
Personhood and the Church SVS Press: Crestwood
New York 1985.
Dumitru
STANILOAE, The Experience of
God, HCO Press: Brookline MA 1994.
Thomas
FITZGERALD, The Orthodox Church, Greenwood Press: Westport CT 1995.
Petros
VASSILIADIS, Eucharist and Witness.
Orthodox Perspectives on the Unity and Witness of the Church, Geneva: WCC
Publications/ Massachusetts: HCO Press 1998.
J.
Zepos-P. Zepos (eds.), Jus Graecoromanum, Vol. II, Athens 1931.
Fr.
DVORNIK, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy. Origins and
Background, Vol. I, Washington 1966.
Georges.
FLOROVSKY, “Antinomies of Christian History: Empire and Desert,” Christianity
and Culture. Vol. II of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky,
Nordland Publishing Company: Belmont 1974, 67-100.
Stanley
S. HARAKAS, Wholeness of Faith and Life: Orthodox Christian Ethics,: HCO
Press: Massachusetts 1999.
Emmanuel
CLAPSIS, Orthodoxy in
Conversation: Orthodox Ecumenical Engagements, WCC Publications: Geneva /
HCO Press: Massachusetts 2000.
The
Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, available on the Internet (http://www.incommunion.org/misc)
[1]In
classical Greek philosophy and language (which was the overall language
adopted by Christianity to elaborate its doctrine) “political” behavior,
i.e. care for the polis (the city, the society) was contrasted to a
selfish, egocentric lifestyle, i.e. the behavior of the “idiot” (Greek
idiotes), a term which universally acquired negative connotations. Cf. 1
Corinthians 14:24, where the term idiotes is equated with that of the
unbeliever.
[2]G.
Florovsky was right that “Byzantium collapsed as a Christian Kingdom,
under the burden of (this) tremendous claim.” G. Florovsky, “Antinomies
of Christian History: Empire and Desert,” in Christianity and Culture.
Vol. II of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky (Nordland
Publishing Company, Belmont 1974), 67-100, p.83).
[3]The
majority of the Orthodox positions with regard to a system of Church-State
relationship, take this Byzantine model as the only acceptable in the
Orthodox world, despite the above mentioned Florovsky’s remarks.
[4]Cf.
St. Harakas, “Church and State in Orthodox Thought,” Greek Orthodox
Theological Review 27 (1982), pp. 5-21; E. Clapsis, Orthodoxy in
Conversation Orthodox Ecumenical Engagements (WCC Publications/Holy
Cross Orthodox Press, Geneva/Brookline 2000); Th. Hopko, "Orthodoxy in
Post-Modern Pluralistic Societies," The Ecumenical Review 51
(1999), pp.364-371.
[5]The
final documents were originally published in the journal Episkepsis
(12.15.1986), and they have since received wide circulation, being
translated into many languages. According to a decision of the consultation,
they all have a binding canonical status for the Orthodox, even before their
final synodical (ecumenical?) approval (ibid, p. 9 n.).
[6]The
final document (now available on the internet http://
www.incommunion.org/misc) deals with “those aspects of the life of the
state and society, which were and are equally relevant for the whole Church
at the end of the 20th century and in the near future.” It is a document
of a local Autocephalus Orthodox Church, primarily aimed at providing her
members “the basic provisions of her teaching on church-state relations
and a number of problems socially significant today” (Preamble).
[7]This
may be because some of the positions taken reflect rather conservative
views, not shared by all Orthodox. In addition, the wide range of themes
tackled (anthropological, ecological, bioethical, educational) may need
further theological examination. But mainly because of the principles
underlined above in section I. After all, the Russian Orthodox, being aware
of all these, does not claim for the document anything more than that it
“reflects the official position of Moscow Patriarchate on relations with
the state and secular society” (ibid). Despite all these limitations, the
document is a courageous first attempt by an official Orthodox institution
to deal with social problems, in the way Western Christians have been
responding to modern everyday challenges in the last centuries, and for this
reason it must be judged accordingly.
[8]The
Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,
III 4.
[9]P.
Vassiliadis, “Orthodoxy and Ecumenism,” Eucharist and Witness.
Orthodox Perspectives on the Unity and Mission of the Church, (WCC
Publications/Holy Cross Orthodox Press, Geneva/Brookline 1998), pp. 7-27,
especially p.15.
[10]Origen,
Contra Celsum VIII 75.
[11]Tertullian,
Apologeticum 38,3. Cf. also his statement in De Pallio: “I
have withdrawn myself from the society (secessi de populo)” (5).
[12]Ad
Diognetum
5,6.
[13]G.
Florovsky, “Antinomies,” p.77.
[14]Ibid.
Fr. Dvornik was certainly right that “in most ways the Byzantine emperors
followed the example of their ‘predecessors’ David and Solomon when
organizing religious life” (Early Christian and Byzantine Political
Philosophy. Origins and Background, vol. I (Washington 1966), p.301.
[15]The
importance of Constantine’s religious policy rests not so much on the
implementation of the religious freedom of his subjects, not even on his
conversion to Christianity. It rests, instead, on the fact that he
introduced a major shift in politics, by replacing the cosmocentric theories
of Greco-Roman antiquity with the theocentric worldview of Christianity, a
process which was dramatically ended in post-Enlightenment modernity. In the
person of Constantine, the Church recognized the possibility of implementing
her catholicity, but also the founder of her visible ecumenicity, and for
that reason she canonized him with the honorable title of isapostolos
(equal to the apostles).
[16]The
other biblical reference, which usually enters in the discussion, i.e. Peter
and the rest of the apostles’ statement: "we must obey God rather
than any human authority” (Acts 5:29), has more general connotations.
[17]Theologically
interpreted, the book of Revelation expresses the victory of the oppressed
over the impersonal and oppressing secular institutions, the victory of the
“politics of theology” over the (pseudo-) “theology of politics.”
[18]P.
Vassiliadis, “The Church and State Relationship in the N.T. (With Special
Reference to the Pauline Theology),” Biblical Hermeneutical Studies,
Bibliotheca Biblica 6, (Pournaras Press, Thessaloniki 20004),
pp.435-444 (in Greek); cf. also my “Your Will Be Done. Reflections from
St. Paul,” Eucharist and Witness, pp. 77-84.
[19]R.
Schoel- W Kroll, Corpus Juris Civilis, Vol. 3 (Berlin 1928), pp.35f.
[20]The
Epanagoge was in fact a draft that has never been officially
promulgated. However, substantial portions of it were incorporated in later
legislation, but most importantly it received wide circulation and
appreciation throughout the Orthodox world.
[21]J.
Zepos and P. Zepos (eds.), Jus Graecoromanum, Vol. II, (Athens 1931),
pp.240ff.
[22]“The
Patriarch is a living and animate image of Christ, characterizing the truth
in deeds and words.” The role of the Patriarch (in rank after the Emperor)
was threefold: (1) to preserve the faith of the Orthodox believers, (2) to
make any possible effort that the heretics be reunited to the Church, and
(3) “finally to behave in such a brilliant, most glorious, and admirable
way so that those outside the faith be attracted and imitate the faith” (Epanagoge
in Jus Graecoromanum, p.242)
[23]More
in G. Florovsky, “Antinomies of Christian History: Empire and Desert,”
pp. 83ff.
[24]Cf.
I.Bria (ed.), Go Forth in Peace. Orthodox Perspectives on Mission
(WCC Press, Geneva, 1986), p. 3.