A Living Text

Besancon writes:

More subtle and difficult to discern is the iconolatry not of the icon, not of the prototype present on the icon, but of the theology of the icon, or the religious domain delimited by the icon. I have pointed out the evolution of the icon toward the theological schema. The danger comes from the fact that, through the exaltation of a particular theology, one allows the honor due the icon to reflect not onto the prototype but onto the system, which is, in fact, the only thing represented. The face becomes a pretext to rejoice in being a disciple of Saint Gregory Palamas rather than of Augustine, to be Orthodox rather than Catholic or Protestant.

I love the transaction that is made with an author when you read their text. For example I bought The Alexiad by Anna Comnena, daughter of the Byzantine emperor Alexius I. In her preface she writes:

The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration…Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against this stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion.

I, Anna, daughter of the Emperor Alexius and the Empress Irene…having realized the effects wrought by Time, desire now by means of my writings to give an account of my father’s deeds, which do not deserve to be consigned to Forgetfulness nor to be swept away on the flood of Time into an ocean of Non-Remembrance;

And by reading this, I fulfill her wish! Here I sit about a thousand years later reading the words she set to paper all that time ago. I interact with her writing and so she wins a victory against time and forgetfulness. There is something so majestic about reading the writing of anyone, especially the ancients. It is like having them in the room with you, however briefly, and learning from them.

What are the relations between the Church and the state in the Orthodox countries?

The Orthodox civilization has developed its own standard model of the relations between the Church and the state, which was called ‘symphony’ in the legal code of Emperor Justinian. However, I would not hurry to authorize this principle of the state-church relations as a specifically Eastern Christian tradition. In the 6^th century, when Emperor Justinian codified the Roman and Byzantine law, a common Christian tradition existed in Europe, and the idea of ‘symphony’, therefore, is a common heritage of the West and East of Europe.

It is necessary to recognize that this model has influenced the Orthodox understanding of the church-state relations. However, one should discern between a historical teaching of ‘symphony’, which belongs entirely to the past, and its methodological foundations, which can be applicable today. Historical understanding of ‘symphony’ is linked with the monarchic form of government and with an ideological role of Orthodoxy. The Church and the state were understood as the two equivalent institutes, as the two gifts of God with different domains of care for one and the same social and cultural body – the people. The Church undertook to defend the Church, and the Church undertook to support the state. Such a model has never been realized, like a democratic model will never be realized in its pure form.

The model of ‘symphony’ today has an important methodological value. I shall remind you that it was formulated as a result of the almost two-hundred-years search for an optimal model of the relations between the Church and the state. The Church and the state were at enmity with each other before the early 4^th century, when Christianity was proclaimed the state religion, and a serious question arose of the kind of relations between the Church and the state with both institutes being in harmony, which means ‘symphony’ in Greek. In the 4^th century Emperor Justinian presented his own solution of this task by listing the duties of the Church and the state before each other. Yet, the contents of these duties can change in different times of history, while the methodological principle of peaceful coexistence between the Church and the state remains the same. When the Russian Orthodox Church adopted the ‘Foundations of the Social Concept’ in 2000, she was guided by the methodology of a ‘symphony’ model in a part of the document dedicated to the relations with the secular state and listed point by point the conditions and fields of a possible harmonious cooperation between the Church and the secular state at present.

There are Orthodox countries today, such as Greece and Georgia, which constitutions declare a special state of the Orthodox Church, as the overwhelming majority of the population of these countries are Orthodox. In my opinion, there is nothing bad or threatening the freedom of people of other faiths, if the State publicly declares its special relations with the religions of the majority of their countries. In this case the clear and comprehensible rules of the church-state relations appear, which can be controlled by the public. I believe it helpful for Russia to define special relations with the four traditional religions of our country: Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. That would allow the State and religious communities to cooperate in various public spheres in proportion to the number of believers, who belong to this or that traditional religion.

The interior of the dome of Saint Nicholas Cathedral in D.C.

The charismata died out with the Apostles right? Wrong. There is so much historical evidence to the contrary that it is embarrassing that people still advance that argument. Whether it be from the Reformers in Scotland, Spurgeon, Martin Luther, or many of the fathers, the evidence is there. Whenever I run across more incidents, they catch my eye. And so to The Alexiad written by Anna Comnena (1083-1153) about her father the Emperor Alexius I. First, a prophecy made to Alexius by a passing stranger when he was still a soldier:

…he reminded him of the prophecy made to him once by a man who appeared somewhere near Karpianos as the two brothers (Alexius and Isaac Comnenus) were on their way home from the palace. For at that place a man met them – or maybe he was a superior being; at all events, someone who really had exceptional clairvoyant powers. As he approached them bare-headed he had the appearance of a priest, white-haired, rough-bearded. He grasped Alexius by the leg and drew him down to his own level (he was on foot and Alexius on horseback) to whisper in his ear this verse from the Psalms of David: ‘Be earnest and prosper and govern with an eye to truth and mercy and justice,’ and then he added, ‘Emperor Alexius.’ Having said this in the manner of an oracle, he vanished. Alexius could not find him, although he looked everywhere in case he might catch sight of him, and galloped at full speed in pursuit of him in case he might lay hands on the man, to find out who he was and whence he came. But the apparition had completely vanished…when he recollected that priestly vision, he likened the old man to the Theologian, the son of Thunder. (St. John the Divine)

Second, she mentions the Patriarch Cosmas, and says:

Now the reigning patriarch was a saintly man, who in very truth had no possessions and had practiced every form of asceticism known to the early Fathers who dwelt in deserts and mountains. He was also endowed with the divine gift of prophecy and had made many predictions on several occasions which never proved to be wrong.

Last week I attended a Monday morning Mass at Holy Apostles Catholic Church and a Saturday night Vespers service at the Church of the Holy Transfiguration, an Antiochan Orthodox parish. The Roman Catholic mass lasted only a half hour (Monday morning) and had about 60 people in attendance. It seemed very much to me as if the priests were just going through the motions to get it done. The ‘homily’ lasted maybe five minutes and seemed as if no fore-thought had been put into it. This was my experience there on a Sunday as well. Holy Apostles has a lot going on during the week in terms of classes and meetings as well as a healing service that I’d like to see. But the Mass itself seems real unsatisfactory to me.

The Orthodox parish was tiny, maybe 10 people at Vespers. This service was by far the most exotic I have been to in my life in terms of incense, icons, and foreign-sounding liturgy. Many psalms were read or chanted which I liked. There was no homily but a read lesson on St. Athanasius. I have to be honest and say that as a Protestant the continual crossing of oneself and prayers to Mary as ‘mediatrix’ were very unnerving and pushed my “superstition” buttons. More the Mary stuff than the crossing. I’m sure the Orthodox service is very impressive when done with a large group of people or in a cathedral but in the setting I was in, a small house converted to a Temple it just seemed overdone. The grand ceremony in a small house with a handful of people didn’t quite add up. I keep asking myself what my kids would grow up to be in settings like that and I’m not real confident about it. Anyway, it was interesting but somewhat disappointing to me.