The Church of the Future: From Hierarch to Shepherd?

This is the 3rd and final blog in this series which has been considering the writings of Nicholas Afanasiev’s book, THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.    The first blog in the series is  The Grace of the Bishop and the 2nd is From Shepherd to Hierarch. 

Afanasiev took a long and serious look at church history and the changing understanding of the Church and of hierarchy.   Though he acknowledges subtle yet profound changes in primitive Christian thinking, a major re-visioning of the Church occurs with the acceptance of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine.

“While the great miracle of history was the emperor became Christian, the Christians would forget the problem bearing on them:  would Caesar be able to become a Christian and remain Caesar?   ….   No change, no metanoia took place which could make the empire Christian.  Caesar could not see any usefulness in repentance for the state, certainly nothing useful in rejecting the very principles upon which the empire was itself built.   …. thus the Roman state became the church under the rule of Caesar…  St. Augustine contrasted Christ to Caesar, noting that the Jews and following them others, had preferred Caesar to Christ … ‘we have no king but Caesar.’ …  They welcomed Caesar as the king of the city of God on earth, forgetting that Christians have no permanent city but seek for the one that is to come (Heb 13:14).  … The protests of Christians against a totally alien yoke did not produce much in the way of tangible results, because it was not the emperor who was seen as problematic, only the abuse of imperial power.  We do not know what was the reaction of the twelfth-century church to the solemn declaration of the emperor which said:

Everything is permitted to the emperors, because there is on earth no difference between divine and imperial power.  All is allowed the emperors and they can use the name of God together with their own, because they have received the imperial dignity of God and there is distance between God and themselves.

But we know that in twelfth-century Byzantium they believed firmly that the anointing of the emperor washed away all his sin.  One could ask if the imperial cult had disappeared in the Christian empire or if it continued even the very fall of Byzantium.  The Christian Caesar remained an Augustus.   Everything that had any relationship to the person of the emperor became by this very fact sacred.”

Afanasiev is critical of this development institutionalizing the church and making it ever more fashioned after the notions of hierarchy, law and order found in the Byzantine Empire.   He believes the price paid by the Church for this imperial stability was immense.  The Roman Emperor did not repent nor even see the value for the empire in his own repentance or the repentance of the state.  Instead the empire was giving to the Church protection and stability and so the Christians embraced imperial Christianity with little critical reflection of how Christianity was being changed by merging its identity with that of the empire.   And the office of pastor, episcokos, bishop, was swallowed by the imperial hierarchic order making the bishops into princes. 

This process of the imperialization of the Church, so Metropolitan Jonah asserts, was only confronted in the Church with the Russian Church Council of 1917.   As Metropolitan Jonah said in his address at St. Vladimir’s Seminary in June:

“The Great Council of 1917, and the revival of the Russian Orthodox Church that it began, are aspects of the de-imperialization of the Orthodox Church and its canonical structures.  This began a process of the transcendence of the imperial domination of Orthodox ecclesiology, which reigned from Constantine and Theodosius to Nicholas II, and the beginning of the adaptation to a new era in which the Church is independent of the state.  This was the beginning of a new conciliar vision, which has developed significantly over the past century.  What it did is to set up a new set of structural and canonical interpretations, demanding a worldwide rethinking of Orthodox ecclesiology. 

The fruit of this vision, partially, is the Orthodox Church in America, and her autocephaly.  The conflict with the old ecclesiological and canonical interpretations forms the context for the issues surrounding the acceptance or rejection of the autocephaly.  This conflict is, however, also the fruitful ground for a creative resolution to the issues confronting the OCA, and the Orthodox Church throughout the world.”

Confronting the imperial mindset of the Church is not and has not been easy.  Yet nothing short of the very purpose and existence of the Church is at stake.   We cannot go back in history and try to restore some golden age of Christianity.  We can however be faithful to the tradition that unfolded and bring to the forefront of our memories aspects of the Church which have been forgotten or abandoned.   We can do this by constantly making Jesus Christ the center of Church life, and the Lord of every aspect of our own personal lives.

Afanasiev concluded his book saying:

“In recognizing in the Church the existence of a power other than that of love, one diminishes or even denies grace, for this would be to diminish or deny the common charism of love without which there could be no ministry.”

It is not an imperial vision, nor even a hierarchical vision, which empowers the Church.  Rather it is faithfulness to Christ and His Gospel which purifies the Church and allows the Church to be renewed in every generation and culture.

From Shepherd to Hierarch

This is the 2nd blog in a series based upon the book, THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SPIRIT by Russian Orthodox priest and scholar Nicholas Afanasiev.   The first blog in the series is  The Grace of the Bishop. 

As in the first blog, I intend to mostly quote Afanasiev to let him speak for himself.  He offers in the book an historical overview of the development of hierarchy and clergy in the Church while defending the priesthood of all believers and noting that all in the Church (including priests and bishops) are also always part of the laity of the church and part of the flock of the One True Shepherd, Jesus Christ. 

“The faithful are shepherded by Christ, and only in a narrow sense of the word by their bishops, for all are Christ’s sheep and are in God’s flock.  Bishop preside over God’s flock, being themselves the sheep of this flock, just as the rest of the sheep led by Christ.”

“Tend the flock of God that is your charge… not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.”  (1 Peter 5:2-3)

Afanasiev writes that in the early church (he calls it the primitive Church), the entire people of God shared the responsibility of discerning the will of God.   This is not a job for the bishop alone, for the Church is a living community, the Body of Christ and requires all members to be active for the Body to be healthy.

“The ecclesial assembly is the place where God’s will is revealed, while it is the people of the Church who examine the revelation and attest to its truthfulness.”

“In the early Church all administration, just as the whole life of the Church, was public.  Everything began and ended at the ecclesial assembly.”

“As with all of history, that of the Church is irreversible.  We cannot return to the time of early Christianity, not only because of radically changed historical conditions but also because the experience of the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the church accumulated through the passage of time, cannot be laid aside.”

The early Church in Afanasiev’s thinking is not just an ideal, a golden age, to which we must go back, but it did represent a very unique moment in the Church’s history which shaped the  growing Christian movement and was shaped by multitude of issues the expanding Christianity faced.

Change, sometimes subtly occurred.   For example, “The episcopal principle of unity of the local church replaces the eucharist.”   Afanasiev strongly believes that the Eucharist was the original unifying symbol of the Church.   The Church is the Body of Christ and this is made manifest in the Eucharistic assembly where the Bread and Wine are shown to be the Body of Christ because the Church is present and manifest in the Assembly of all believers.  But as the role of the presiders of the Eucharistic assembly subtly changed, so did the focus of the assembly.  The bishop became to be seen as the unifying factor in the assembly and all were to be in unity with him and he alone presided at the Eucharist.   This setting apart of the bishop meant he was no longer seen as part of the royal priesthood of all believers, but that he had a special priesthood that the rest – the laity – did not.   As the roles of the bishop and presbyter became more standardized in the emerging church, the bishop eventually replaces the senior presbyter as the one who presides at the Eucharist in each assembly.    As the bishops role became more clear, the role of the presbyters became less pronounced.    As time moved on the bishops become more diocesan hierarchs who then gave priestly ministry to the parish priests.   The presbyters role re-emerged as priest while the bishops became archpriests, hierarchs.

“Beginning with the era of Constantine, the Church becomes a body governed by law in the eyes of the Roman state authorities.  It is quite natural, but in turn, the Church recognizes the law as indispensable for itself.  This was the step that inevitably led to destruction of the primordial concordance or symphony between the people and the bishop.  The bishop becomes a high official and prince of the Church whose subjects are the people and clergy.”

Afanasiev claims that the increased emphasis on the apostolic succession used to combat heresies and false teachers eventually was combined with a notion that emerged over time in the Church: the notion of the high priesthood of the apostles.    Basically the argument which evolved was that  Christ was the high priest and the apostles received and preserved the high priesthood of Christ.   The apostles then passed on the high priesthood to the bishops.    This is how the bishop’s role changed in emphases from being pastor/shepherd to high priest (hierarch).

Next:  The Church of the Future: From Hierarch back to Shepherd?

The Grace of the Bishop

I want to finish making a few comments about the church, clericalism and hierarchy that I gleaned from Nicholas Afanasiev’s book, THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SPIRIT .   Afanasiev was a noted scholar and Russian Orthodox priest.  This is the first blog in this series.

Afanasiev makes an interesting observation about how ancient Israel differs from Christianity in terms of converts.  In ancient Israel, “the neophytes themselves were not regarded in all respects as true members of Israel, but only their descendants.  In the New Testament however, it is spiritual birth that determines if someone belongs to the Church.”  Converts to Judaism were often treated as “God fearers” but not true Jews.  Their children however could automatically become Jews by virtue of their being born to “Jewish parents.”  In Christianity, as Professor Kesich of St. Vladimir’s Seminary used to say, “we are all born as little pagans.”   The convert to Christianity becomes a full member of the Church immediately, but the children born later will have to be baptized and embrace Christianity on their own as their parents’ faith is not transferable as some sort of ethnic or racial characteristic.

Rather than draw all kinds of conclusions from what he wrote, I want in this first blog to just glean from Afanasiev a few ideas which he pulled from the Scriptures and early Church leaders.

 [5:1] Now as an elder (presbyter) myself and a witness (martyr) of the sufferings of Christ, as well as one who shares in the glory to be revealed, I exhort the elders (presbyters) among you [2] to tend (shepherd) the flock of God that is in your charge, exercising the oversight, not under compulsion but willingly, as God would have you do it—not for sordid gain but eagerly. [3] Do not lord it over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock.” (1 Peter 5:1-3, NRSV)

“Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (bishops), to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”   (  Acts 20:28)

“for you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Guardian (Episkopan) of your souls”  (1 Peter 2:25). …   The only meaning of the word ‘bishop’ in the above text may be the original one: a keeper or guardian.  Pastoral service, as we have pointed out, is not only to lead the flock but also to care for every member of the flock entrusted to the pastor’s leadership.”

“those who have authority (hoi archontes) are ministers of God” (Rom 13:6)

“St. Paul did not have power over the churches because no such kind of power existed.”

“But the ministry which was most intimately connected with the presidency was the ministry of assistance (antilempsis).   … Love is the common charism of the entire people of God and without love no ministry in the Church is possible. … assistance is not a common ministry of all but rather a ministry of some through whom the love of all is manifested.”   (St. Paul lists the ministry of assistance  in both 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Romans 12:8)

“I think he ought to be called ‘guide’ (hegoumenos), the one we call ‘bishop’ in the Church.  He ought to be the servant of all in his ministry, in order to be of use to all in the work of salvation.”  (Origin)

“Let the ruler of the nations exercise lordship over them, but let the rulers of the Church be to it as servants.”   (Origin)

In all of these quotes, Afanasiev emphasizes that church leadership (bishop, presbyter, igumen, ruler, authority) is to be empowered by love to serve, not to be in love with power in order to be served.  St. Peter, who all authority loving popes and patriarchs hold up as the model of leadership, denounces those who want to lord it over their fellow Chrisitans.  Rather than being lords who command their flocks, St. Peter tells them they have the much harder task of being examples to the flock – they are to lead by example not by commands and law.   It is the Law of Love not the love of Law which is to be the guiding force in the lives of Christiain leaders.

Next blog:  From Shepherd to Hierarch

The Faithful Choose the Bishop Who God Ordained

This is the second blog in which I am commenting on the book, THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SPIRIT by Russian Orthodox priest and scholar Nicholas Afanasiev .   The first blog is Baptism –  Consecration to  the Royal Priesthood.

Regarding the ordination of priests and bishops, Afanasiev says that neither the bishop nor the Church passes on the gifts of the Spirit to the ordinand.   Rather, the Church through the bishop only recognizes that the ordinand already possesses the gifts of the Spirit.   What the bishop/church does is to petition God asking Him to bless or confirm the ordinand in the position to which the Church is recognizing them as a minister.  The prayer of the church is, according to Afanasiev that God will show that the candidate indeed possesses the gifts that the Church community believes it has recognized in him.   Thus the prayer of ordination to the diaconate or priesthood or the consecration of a bishop is really asking God to show us that we discerned correctly; that we did recognized correctly the gifts of the Spirit active in this person.  The bishop when ordaining a deacon says, “The divine grace…. ordains, N., …”.  The divine grace or the Holy Spirit ordains, not the bishop. (See Acts 20:28 – it is the Holy Spirit who makes bishops, not other bishops).    The bishop also says, “God… by Your foreknowledge send the gift of Your Holy Spirit on them that are foreordained…”  Finally the bishop says, “for it is not by the laying-on of hands, but by the visitation of Your rich compassions, that grace is given unto them that are worthy of You.”    The texts indicate it is God who does the choosing, the gifting and the ordaining.  The Church is recognizing what God has already done. In the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 6:2-3, the Apostles instruct the people “to choose” (Greek:  episkepsasthe) men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom – these traits are already to be obvious in the candidates to all believers.  The Apostles are implying that the seven men who already have these traits are the ones chosen by God for this task.  The people’s duty is not to train the men, nor to pray that they be given these characteristics, but rather to recognize/discern which men already possess these particular traits/gifts.  The traits/gifts are the sign that they are chosen by God for the ministry.   We are not approving of what God has revealed; we simply are ourselves ritually recognizing or disclosing God’s choice and will.

The divine will cannot depend on the human will or be subject to it.  God sends the gifts of the Holy Spirit not upon those chosen by the bishops or the people of the Church but upon those whom He himself chooses.  The bishop has the grace to celebrate the sacrament of ordination, but this does not mean that he manages the gifts of the Holy Spirit.   …  the bishop is not the one who has a depository of grace in order to distribute it to anyone he wills.

Just as God Himself appointed Saul to be an Apostle (Acts 26:16), so it is God, not bishop or council or people who appoints apostles, prophets, teachers, pastors and bishops in and for the Church.  The Church for its part recognizes God’s choice of the person chosen for ministry within the local community.  Ordination thus originally was the Church recognizing or showing who God had chosen for leadership within the community.  The election of the person for episcopal ordination “by the local church is one of the ways to discover God’s will, for it is not the one who is pleasing to the people that is elected but the one who was already appointed by God for ministry.”   However both the election by the community and the ordination itself both have the goal of seeking God’s will – who is it that God has chosen and ordained for ministry in the community? 

It is not the human community who can make a man be a pastor or a bishop – this is God’s doing.   The community’s role is to recognize what God is doing in the community and through whom.  In the early church it was the entire community who endeavored to discern God’s will through the election of the bishop.

For the thinking of the primitive Church, the election by the Church meant the election by all the people.  Clement himself spoke about  this, pointing out that the bishops are ordained ‘with the consent of the whole church’ …     Cyprian tells us … ‘And the bishop should be chosen (episcopus deligatur) in the presence of the people who have most fully known the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as respects his habitual conduct.’

Thus discerning God’s will, determining who was ordained by God to be the bishop in the primitive church, was an act of the entire people of God.  The bishops were to be chosen by the people not from strangers or distant holy men, but from their own midst – from the men they communally familiar with; men who by their own lives and example showed that they had been ordained by God for leadership in the Church.

Beginning in the Nicean era, the people are gradually deprived of the right to elect their own pastors. … At the time when juridical principles penetrated the Church and effected the deprivation of election by the people, the third aspect of ordination – the witness of the people—lost its meaning.

The Church says Afanasiev began following exactly its decreed canons for selecting bishops but no longer relied on the example of the candidate’s life as known by the local community to discern God’s will.  Those who lacked any canonical impediments became the candidates of choice rather than those whose lives exemplified being chosen by God.

The Unity of the Church

The recent discussions regarding the Church in America and Canon 28 of the 451AD Council of Chalcedon are no doubt essential to the eventual normalization in organizing the Orthodox jurisdictions in America.  I have not yet had the chance to completely read the comments of historian and canonical interpreter Fr. John Erickson, Chalcedon Canon 28: Yesterday and Today, former dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary.   I did read Nick Katich’s insightful “Chalcedon Canon 28: Historic Truth or Greek Mythology?”   which also made me realize how far we need yet to travel to bring about “normalcy” to Orthodoxy in America in terms of ecclesiological structure.

This morning as I was doing my daily devotions and scripture reading I read Joshua 22 which contains the story of Joshua finally giving the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh permission to occupy the territories east of the Jordan River which they had requested at the beginning of the Jewish invasion of Palestine, but which they had to delay until all the tribes had secured for themselves a homeland in the territories west of the River Jordan.  Joshua recognizes that the River Jordan which forms a natural boundary also represents a potential permanent division between the tribes.  He instructs those minority 2 and 1/2 tribes living east of the Jordan to maintain unity with the rest of the Israelites by carefully following the rule of faith: “to love the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, to keep His commandments, to adhere to Him, and to serve Him with all your mind and with all your soul” (22:5, OSB). 

Tribalism like jurisdictionalism or ethnicism always poses a threat to the unity of God’s people.   Human conventions are strong enough to break apart the unity which God wishes His people would choose, maintain and build up.

What transpires in Joshua 22 is that the 2 and 1/2 Eastern tribes proceed to build an altar to God on their side of the River Jordan.  Immediately an alarm is set off among the other 10 tribes that the Eastern tribes have broken unity with the Western tribes by setting up their own altar.  A call to arms goes out and the 10 tribes prepare for war against their brethren.  The 2 and 1/2 tribes then explain themselves:  they are not setting up an altar in opposition to the altar of the tabernacle, but rather they want to have an altar to remind future generations that they worship the one true God of Israel and as a witness to their unity with the other tribes.   Their fear is that in the future the majority tribes on the Eastern side of the Jordan will eventually declare that they are not really part of Israel.   Each “side” in the conflict had a different need and a different fear – they were separated by tribe, by geography, and now by altar and custom.  Despite all these differences they were still able to see and reaffirm their unity.   They didn’t need monolithic administration and thought about every custom or practice, they didn’t need conformity and uniformity in practice to preserve their basic unity in faith.  What binds them together was “that the Lord is their God” (22:34).

Such too will have to be the nature of unity for the Orthodox in America when it comes.  It will not be external law and canons that will bind us together, for Orthodoxy in America is multicutural and abounds in diverse practice and customs.   The true unifying principle must be the Spirit of God working within us.   As Nicholas Afanasiev wrote in THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, in primitive Christianity the increase in the number of local communities did not disturb the unity of the faith for each community could not separate itself from Christ – the only foundation they had.  The unifying principle – one Lord and one Spirit – were central to each community, were at the heart of each community, were internal to each community long before there were any hierarchs or canons to impose unity on the Church.    It was and is the Holy Spirit and not human law or convention that serves as both the organizing and unifying principle of the Church.

While the canons, and Chalcedon 28, are part of the Tradition of the Church, their purpose is to help maintain the unity of the Spirit which resides in all Christians because of their having received the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit in Chrismation.   The main purpose of the Church is not to promulgate and uphold canons, but rather to use the canons when necessary as a tool to maintain the God-given unity of the Holy Spirit among all Christians.