Orthodox Christianity, Vol I, Ch 14: Schisms

This chapter is only two pages long. It describes the situation when people start their own churches or governing bodies, and by doing that are splitting themselves apart from the Church. Factors that are common in escalating schisms are political support from secular authorities and movements, zealous overreactions to changes in a local Church, such as the ecclesial calendar, and disagreements about obtaining status as an autocephalous (self-governing) church, which would describe something like a local Church emerging out of another local Church that once had some rights and privileges over the other. For this reason, among others, politics is a grave matter to bring into the Church or temples. Metropolitan Hilarion provides a several brief examples from the Balkans and Eastern Europe to illustrate how politics can interfere with and perpetuate schisms. Governments may help to heal schisms as well. But only as a proxy, and not the direct mechanism for settling church affairs.

A complication involved in jurisdictional disputes is that governments do not distinguish between “canonical and uncanonical.” Like a person’s own body, it needs to be regulated with food, temperature, intimacy and work. The growth and independence of churches also need to follow some regularity governed by canons (rules) that are applied by those in apostolic succession: the bishops over a Church. Another simple metaphor is one’s regulation of personal and social relationships. We navigate them, hopefully, with some ways of regulating ourselves and interact based on conscious or unconscious rules of behavior. It’s realistically a messy and imperfect way of living in this dimly lit world of this age. Nevertheless, we strive for perfection of love that banishes fear and deification in Christ Jesus. Patriarch John X spoke publicly in 2015 during an interview about peace and schism in Eastern Europe. He likened schisms and the people who promote them as family members who are sick and in need of healing. Just as when all the leaders (primates) of the Church met at Jerusalem to agree on what happened and what ought to be decided about gentile Christians, so too John X was expressing the principle of love that is conciliar, collegial, not according to the world of coercion and self-will, or absolute autonomy. When someone in our family falls deathly ill, we should dialogue with each person involved in care taking, since stress, emotions, intense disagreements are inevitably going to rise up.

Orthodox Christianity, Vol I, Ch 13: The Practical Application of the Principle of Canonical Territory

In practice up until World War I there were no jurisdictions overlapping each other. Because of mass migrations, political upheaval, and massive wars, jurisdictions weren’t applied ideally. That doesn’t mean, though, that catholicity or unity or the integrity of the Church was severely compromised. The chaos did have negative effects in complicating church governance and confusing Christians who are living in a foreign land. Another result was that Russian Orthodox Christians in western Europe began creating their own church outside of the Moscow Patriarchate, which was often viewed as complicit in the atheistic government of the Soviet Union. World War II created more communities abroad. The so-called “ethnic” churches, for both Roman Catholics and Orthodox, during the world war periods of immigration, have been largely dissolved in terms of young people continuing the faith, language, and culture of their European ancestry or the Middle Eastern lifestyle. Hispanic immigrants to this country are maybe an exception to the rule of losing one’s language and persisting in having a foot in two cultures in the USA. But overall, the principle of monarchic bishops or respecting canonical territory is still observed. There isn’t one Church called the “the Church of North America” yet. Despite that, the ecclesiastical governance practiced by hierarchs now in Orthodoxy is still probably more cohesive than the principles that rely on free social contracts and pursuits of self-interest that have sacrificed religious identity, mores, and social expectations or rules for such a high degree of personal liberty and choice that has been unheard of until our modern age. As a result, everything is up for debate. We grow up with the burden of defining our own identity to such an excruciating point that even our gender becomes a topic for identity. Everything becomes about conversation instead of given values and the common good as a foundation for dialogue. Discovering what people expect rather than following standards of behavior is the new norm. These ultimately have an effect on church jurisdictions and personalities. But they are not brought up in the chapter. In the Church we have a much clearer identity, and much more freedom to find ourselves through relationships that are both stable and energized by our longings. St. Euphrosyne of Alexandria, for instance, was a young woman who wished not to marry, but the world wanted to impose its standards on her. So, she disguised herself as a man and lived in a monastery for 38 years in ascetic discipline until her father discovered her. Then he himself too became a monk and gave up his wealth. The Church fosters freedom. It nurtures stability.

Borders of nations aren’t always perfectly matched to canonical territory is another interesting aspect of Orthodoxy. Borders were probably more fluid in relationship to people in previous times, even relatively recently in American history of homesteading and colonizing the western half of the United States. Even then travel and transportation wasn’t always so quick and easy to do as it is today. That must have an effect on the perception and experience of Orthodox Christians who tend to move a lot more than earlier generations. Values that are present in American culture are: interdependence vs. independence, travel/free movement vs. stability, community vs. autonomy. The enterprising Rurik dynasty of Russia too had values that weren’t entirely helpful in preserving along side of Orthodox Christianity. Polygamy, sorcery, nature worship just to name a few. Of course, all of these values listed are on a spectrum that operate within interrelationships, not strict categories, that also live in different degrees of expression in each individual and place. Metropolitan Hilarion briefly brings up the cultural aspect of Orthodoxy in Russia. It’s a country where historically the majority of the population identify as Orthodox Christians. Those important elements would influence certain decisions that could be made for local councils and practices in the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate. What does it matter? Christ told the apostles and the Holy Apostle Peter, after his astonishment of the miracle, that he would be “catching men” instead of fish. To capture people’s hearts and minds is more powerful than simply taking territory by manipulation and violence, and it's the best way to govern where people live in a certain region and culture. Where the Romans built baths and plumbing, Christians built baptistries and hospitals. Where the Romans built colosseums for entertainment, Christians built altars for the Eucharist. Where the Greeks had built gymasiums and academies, Christians built monasteries and catechetical schools. Where the Romans built statues, basilicas, and mosaics, Christians turned these buildings into temples, icons of the most truly transfigured reality, and beautified the walls for heavenly worship. Today Russia isn’t a territory where missionary activity is really permitted as it is now in North America. The boats of Orthodoxy flow over the waters of the world in chaos. But we worship peacefully and in unity between regions and the ever-changing borders in the middle of this global glamor because we have been given the Eucharist.

Orthodox Christianity, Vol I, Ch 12: The Contemporary Canonical Strucutre of the Orthodox Church

A diocese is the term later applied to an independent Church region that was run by rules or canons (kanon in Greek) that were applied and practiced through the “principle of the monarchic episcopate.” Monarchic meant that one bishop led one city, region, or maybe a country. Beyond that level, councils were held with other bishops, elders, deacons, people. It seems that councils where issues needed to be resolved were held at the locations where it originated. For example, the council of Jerusalem convened to settle disputes about whether gentile Christians had to observe certain Jewish rituals to be a member of the Church. It wasn’t held at Rome or Antioch, nor was it settled by Alexandria or the regions of Asia Minor. Diocese used to be an older administrative unit of the Roman empire that included provinces or a governor’s jurisdictional territory (dioikesis - across the house, housekeeping in Greek). But it would be a mistake to think that the way that the Roman empire was run is identical to that of the Church just because a term was borrowed from that time and cultural experience. While there may be some comparison between a provincial governor’s responsibilities over a region like that of a bishop, there is not an emperor bishop or imperial bishopric role identified in the canons of the Church or by apostolic tradition, or in any writings of the holy fathers.

Metropolitan Hilarion doesn’t give much detail on what canons are, how they are used, their source, writings. He mentions the Apostolic Institutions, a very early document of the faith. Canon is a church rule or even a “law” so to speak. The principle of Church unity is holy orders through love, not Judaic observance of laws. The mystical heart matters in the application of rules. Canon could mean a rod for measuring. The Greek word is borrowed from the Hebrew kaneh. It’s a straight a reed stick used as a standard. Canons imply wisdom that is found only in the experience of the glowing glory of God. Christ is the true reed that shoots out of dead dirt and grows up out of the ground — the resurrection manifested in every local land or canonical territory. We recognize that Christ is the power of growth and the glue that holds dioceses, archdioceses, patriarchates together over the ages. His Body is the reality revealed through the unity of bishops who shepherd flocks of peoples, shoals of fish overflowing, and homelands toward the altar of the Eucharist. That is the miraculous reed of rules we follow. The subtle, poetic heart of Hebrew and Aramaic gives us another ancient image that was recounted by the Holy Apostle John the Theologian’s vision and by the Holy Prophet Ezekial. They describe who held the measuring reed and how the temple and altar was to be measured and approached. Ezekial prophesies: And he brought me thither, and behold, there was a man, whose appearance was like the appearance of brass, with a line of flax in his hand, and a measuring reed; and he stood in the gate. We also know that the gospels recount Christ being given and holding a reed in his hand (also seen as a rood or cross in our icon of Christ) after his flogging. The reed or cross is what we use to measure all things in life and in death, in church governance and right order, in sherpherding and in duties, and in personal relationships.

Today “local Church” means that there is a larger organizational structure that includes dioceses that are led by patriarchates, metropolias, and archdioceses and primates and hierarches (first rulers and holy rulers) with corresponding ranks: patriarch, metropolitan, archbishop, archpriest. In this layer of the Church, collegiality is the operating principle of governance and order. Direct intervention of one bishop over another is not a canonical way to express order or unity in the history of the Church. In other words, there doesn’t exist any principle of episcopus episcoporum (a bishop of bishops) in a monarchic sense that would give one bishop the right to intervene into the business of another bishop’s church. The Antiochian Orthodox Church or the Patriarchate of Antioch, for instance, has the highest dogmatic authority at that local level, like the Patriarchate of Moscow or the Russian Orthodox Church, through councils of bishops or synods (meetings). Some local Churches have “national councils,” like in Russian territory, and some don’t. Here at St. John the Forerunner, we are in the Patriarchate of Antioch and in the Archdiocese of North America and in the Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America. As we have read about the example of Russia and Baptism of the lands of the Rus’, patriarchates often have a local history of Christianization in either a city or a country of loosely related peoples and cultures. The expectation that every Church should speak the same language and have a strict kind of uniformity is probably a unique modern perspective among western Christians. There is always tension between rigidity and freedom. It shouldn’t be surprising that God works in each place and in his own way with the people that are currently in a country or cultural pocket of a territory. It wouldn’t be out of character with the Holy Trinity that the Church works differently with people in Texas than in California, as well as all of the Americas: the U.S., Mexico, South America, Alaska, and Canada. Another unsurprising fact is that a large portion of Europe is historically Orthodox, not Roman Catholic or Protestant: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Albania, Greece, Cyprus, Macedonia, Georgia as well as minorities in Czechia and Slovakia (Rusyns or Carpathian Rus’), and Calabria, Italy. That makes up about 95% of contemporary Orthodoxy. It’s worth noting that Patriarchates or local Churches are often based out of major cities, not based strictly on ethnicity or patriotism as a foundation: *Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Moscow. And the Orthodox Church in America includes the canonical territory of the USA, Mexico and Canada – the North American continent, as it’s listed in this chapter by Metropolitan Hilarion. Many Spanish speakers are aware that we in the USA as well as in Mexico are all North Americans. We share a similar history and culture, especially in Texas, in the same broad sense of saying European or Asian. Spanish is a very American language as well as French and English and other Native American languages. Some native Alaskans have been practicing Orthodoxy much earlier than us in Texas. Like newer Orthodox Churches in Finland and Japan, the North American Orthodox Church may some day have its own independent structure or autocephaly (self-rule). As of now, because of so much immigration and missionary activity here, an autocephalous North American Orthodox Church has not solidified. A pan-Orthodox council, according to Metropolitan Hilarion, isn’t necessary to ensure catholicity and unity in Holy Orthodoxy. It isn’t clear if that is also the view of other patriarchates. Metropolitan Hilarion explains that there is no “mechanism” at the global level for direct control over catholicity or unity or even autocephaly and dissolving pressing problems. He may be hinting at the absolute authority that the Roman pontiff holds. But other patriarchs have expressed the view in interviews that a meeting of all the primates would be beneficial to settling problems that would affect the unity of world Orthodoxy. The heavenly Jerusalem is the kingdom of heaven. Wherever all bishops meet, whenever they all meet to agree, the heavenly city is present. Unity isn’t something to be imposed by fear or force, but by abiding in love, in Christ Jesus who is the head of all Churches in heaven and on earth.

Orthodox Christianity, Vol I, Ch 11: The Formation of the Canonical Structure of the Orthodox Church

Metropolitan Hilarion begins by describing how the apostles set up bishops and elders who oversaw cities and its regions: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Carthage. It’s noteworthy that the missionary activity and the first examples of churches and territories that bishops oversaw were not primarily “home churches” nor was the papal supremacy principle operating in Rome yet. Many other cities of the Roman empire too were incorporated into ecclesial order of the Church by hierarchy: bishops and deacons. It’s an obvious New Testament fact that priests and ecclesial rules are set out for future Christian generations. The earliest witnesses of Orthodoxy viewed the bishop and presbyter as almost the same in function. There was not much of a difference between them. St. Ignatius taught the guiding idea of the “monarchic episcopate.” The Church would be governed by one bishop as head of a local area or church with priests or presbyters standing in as representatives of the bishop who couldn’t attend all local churches at once.

It was never allowed that a church could celebrate the eucharist without the knowledge of the bishop. This close relationship of holy orders is important because it ensures that the people will be served and the eucharist as well as other mysteries will be offered. The locality was eventually labeled a diocese after the Latin term used for organizing imperial regions. By this historical fact we discern that there is no other higher authority other than one locality’s bishop who oversees his local, ecclesial community, who is also in communion with other bishops. The apostles worked in different cities, regions, among different cultures. But they worked with one mind and with knowledge of one another. There was a council held in Jerusalem, again without all the elements required for a modern understanding of the papacy: no Rome, no throne, the leader of the apostles, Peter, working with all the apostles and elders – an amazing example of church governance laid out in the New Testament. The “collegium” of bishops and deacons made decisions, which the apostles were keen to show by example, since they understood that their own end would be soon. So, the church is run by apostolic bishops who are “monarchic” in their own locality but also take council among his delegates. It’s also important to remember that the mysteries are given specially by the permission of the bishop. The universal relationship between churches are maintained by the bishops.

Canonical territory comes from the idea that a bishop orders the affairs, concerns, problems, growth of his own church’s locality, region or community. A common assumption among western Christians is that churches just sprang up like from the principles of evolutionary biology. But the church is made up of human beings, and that entails an order of interrelationships, which explains much more than scientific stories. At the heart of dioceses and churches are personal relationships, not simply the continuation of a brand of culture or institutional name. Orthodoxy balances the distance of bishops and people with priests and deacons, the distance of regions with other local bishops, and all distances return to a focal point in the catholicity of Orthodoxy: the otherworldly Eucharist. So, the canons or rules of remaining in one’s own territory are meant to keep the balance of communion as every interpersonal relationship tries to capture. The Apostolic Canons ca. 4th c. , an ancient writing and witness of Orthodox ecclesiology, gives us these rules for liturgical life. The local church represents one body among many other bodies which all are in Christ’s Holy Body because of the eucharist and the incarnation.

Autocephaly seems to be a very fluid concept and process. The modern canons of territory have been greatly affected by losing communion with Rome among the order of local churches, the Muslim conquests of the Middle East, and the atheistic regimes of our own times that have caused mass migrations.

Orthodox Christianity, Vol I, Ch 10: The Orthodox Church on the Threshold of the Third Millennium

The anonymous 8th c. Anglo Saxon poem called The Ruin describes the Roman structures left in the city of Bath. It goes:

This masonry is wondrous; fates broke it, courtyard pavements were smashed, the work of giants is decaying. Roofs are fallen, ruinous towers, the frosty gate with frost on cement is ravaged, chipped roofs are torn, fallen, undermined by old age.The grasp of the earth possesses the mighty builders, perished and fallen, the hard grasp of earth, until a hundred generations of people have departed.Often this wall, lichen-grey and stained with red, experienced one reign after another, remained standing under storms; the high wide gate has collapsed. Still the masonry endures.

Like this poetic description of these structural walls weathering hardships and finally giving out, the Church continues building literal temples, without lament for past ruins of Byzantium. We are continually being trampled and yet we continue in faithfulness by the power of the Cross of Christ. The masonry of Holy Trinity’s faithfulness, so to speak, will always endure even when it seems the world has torn it all down.The whole of the Church’s history, structure, and canons that have survived are revolving around the divine services. Many people nowadays in the third millennium like many before us hold to a philosophy that presupposes that meaning is created from ourselves, from our own choices, from our own will. No need to find it inside a church. The Church is a place where we discover that self-denial is a life-giving philosophy, not a life negating one. Persecution, insults, mockery, misfortunes, false accusations, rejections are what Christ warned us that we will confront. Extreme humility experienced in these circumstances has the miraculous potential to solidify the faith in a person and community, and it could wall up our hearts for protection. But to reject religion and the Church sounds like a courageous commitment to finding truth for yourself and one’s self development. It’s unpopular and against the common opinion to believe that meaning and life come from the Church where inside of a building, at an altar, we are given unique access to the mysteries of life and death. After centuries of persecution by a variety of religious and atheistic groups from the east to the west, Orthodoxy worldwide is rebounding in terms of churches being restored, built, and believers entering the Church. Orthodoxy in western cultures could be described as a missionary effort on the scale of converting large portions of the pagan Roman empire and widespread Hellenism comparable to today’s atheism.

A common ground and ethos that is broken between western Christians and Orthodoxy is the reading of eastern patristics, or its interpretation. It isn’t due to a lack of resources or technology that we are often ignorant of them. But because we haven’t become interested in what the eastern fathers have to say to us, we don’t make space and time for a silence to hear them and their wisdom, which is Orthodox. Their examples and icons are the antidotes to our public mental health crisis, as our own iconographers and writers have observed. They are largely absent in feast days, structural features, pastoral applications, icons, books, homilies, catechetical materials and education in non-Orthodox western places of worship. The mysteries in the divine services, the patristic writings, saints’ lives, icons, monks and nuns, ordinary parish life have never stopped inspiring new generations of Orthodox Christians. Is there a noticeable difference between the health of western Christianity and Orthodoxy? Metropolitan Hilarion argues that there is as it is evident in the Church’s historical and miraculous survival and recent growth like a reed shooting up out of the mud. Scholarship and theological books as well as iconography and temple structures have been ways that Orthodoxy has clearly witnessed to the world the good news, and not only to non-religious individuals but also importantly to other Christian denominations. Bishop Kallistos from England and Jean-Claude Larchet from France, for instance, have been doing this kind of witnessing work of renewal. The next chapter discusses how world Orthodoxy is organized canonically.