Ecclesiology

Don’t Confuse Autocephaly with Theology

Published on: September 25, 2015
Total views: 1,361
Readers' rating:
1
(1)
Reading Time: 2 minutes

This essay was originally delivered as a public talk at the June 2015 Fordham/OTSA conference on the upcoming Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church. It was part of a panel on Autocephaly and Diaspora.

For our entire history, secular geographies have dictated the boundaries of episcopal sees and autocephalous churches. The decisions of ecumenical councils, which occasionally affirmed these jurisdictions, were pragmatic efforts to align—and often realign—the ecclesiastical map according to shifting political realities.  In short, there is nothing theologically significant about ecclesial borders.

In the late-Roman and Byzantine periods, the boundaries of a bishop’s diocese were precisely those of the imperial map.  If the borders of a Roman province shifted, diocesan borders shifted as well.  When the emperor Justinian affirmed the concept of autocephalous churches and promoted the Pentarchy, the ecclesial map reflected the organizational structure of the empire—Jerusalem’s autonomy, of course, was the exception that proved the rule.  And, it is worth noting that Justinian and his successors did more than shift borders, they also increased and decreased the number of autocephalous regions.  For example, prior to the emperor’s death, the church granted autocephaly on par with the Pentarchy to the Balkan See of Justinian’s hometown—not only does this city no longer exist, we are not even sure where it was.

The relationship between ecclesial borders and secular politics in post-Ottoman Eastern Europe is largely comparable—as Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia forged independent nation-states on Westphalian models, so too did the churches in those regions gain autonomy.

While there is no genuine theological significance to these historical shifts, I submit that there are two differences in our contemporary setting that fundamentally diminish the ability of the Church to engage the theological questions of our age.

First, with the demise of the Byzantine empire, we lost the mechanism the Church historically employed to reach consensus on difficult questions.  It was the state, not the episcopal assembly, which forced bishops to the table at each of the ecumenical councils.

Please don’t misunderstand me.  I am not lamenting the loss of the empire. But we have to acknowledge that the political setting of modernity has serious implications for the Church.  Not only do we lack a political superstructure to force theological conversation but every one of our canons that speaks to jurisdictional issues presumes the existence of an empire that no longer exists and isn’t coming back.

These canons must be reevaluated in light of the political present, with the knowledge that it was always their purpose to align with the political present, not a nostalgic past.  Put simply, we need to craft a ecclesial structure that can function without empire.

The second and far more challenging difference is that the borders that separate autocephalous churches now largely reflect national borders.  This is a uniquely modern phenomenon that corresponds to the invention of nation-states.  I contend that the insidious myths that undergird nationalist ideology have deeply infected Orthodox sentimentality.

I do not think we can overstate just how destructive the rise of national churches has been for the cause of Christian unity.  With the lone exception of the Ecumenical Patriarch, I do not see a single autocephalous leader in the modern Orthodox world who is willing to denounce nationalism as a sin. If the Orthodox Church is to actualize the claim of universal truth, and if it is to do so within an ecclesial structure that values autocephalous churches, it must reject, without exception, any nationalist ideology that obstructs the cause of Christian unity.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As you’ve reached the conclusion of the article, we have a humble request. The preparation and publication of this article were made possible, in part, by the support of our readers. Even the smallest monthly donation contributes to empowering our editorial team to produce valuable content. Your support is truly significant to us. If you appreciate our work, consider making a donation – every contribution matters. Thank you for being a vital part of our community.

Public Orthodoxy seeks to promote conversation by providing a forum for diverse perspectives on contemporary issues related to Orthodox Christianity. The positions expressed in this essay are solely the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Orthodox Christian Studies Center.

About author

  • George Demacopoulos

    Fr. John Meyendorff & Patterson Family Chair, Co-Director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center, Fordham University

    George Demacopoulos is the Fr. John Meyendorff & Patterson Family Chair of Orthodox Christian Studies, co-director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center, and a Professor of Historical Theology at Fordham University. Professor Demacopoulos’ research and teaching interests are in the fields of ...

    Read author's full bio and see articles by this author

Have something on your mind?

Thanks for reading this article! If you feel that you ready to join the discussion, we welcome high-caliber unsolicited submissions. Essays may cover any topic relevant to our credo – Bridging the Ecclesial, the Academic, and the Political. Follow the link below to check our guidlines and submit your essay.

Proceed to submission page

Rate this publication

Did you find this essay interesting?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 1 / 5. Vote count: 1

Be the first to rate this essay.

Share this publication

Disclaimer

Public Orthodoxy seeks to promote conversation by providing a forum for diverse perspectives on contemporary issues related to Orthodox Christianity. The positions expressed in the articles on this website are solely the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Orthodox Christian Studies Center.

Attribution

Public Orthodoxy is a publication of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center of Fordham University