Holy and Great Council, Orthodoxy and Modernity

Defending Human Dignity

Published on: June 15, 2016
1,251 views
Readers' rating:
0
(0)
Reading Time: 3 minutes

This essay was sponsored by the Orthodox Theological Society in America’s Special Project on the Holy and Great Council and published by the Orthodox Christian Studies Center of Fordham University.

The authors of ‘The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World’ are to be commended for framing our shared ecclesial mission as one of making present the eschatological hope of the new creation in which “race, gender, age, social, or any other condition” are no bar to shared eucharistic celebration. The document rightly reminds us that “the purpose of the incarnation … is the deification of the human person” which establishes the dignity of all persons, and demands its protection. As co-workers with God, the church and its members enter into “common service together with all people of good will,” seeking to establish peace, justice (3, 6), and social solidarity (6.4, 6.5, 6.6), gifts of the Holy Spirit which come from God (3.2) but “also depend on human synergy” (3.3). These gifts, and this work, is required for the flourishing of human dignity.

The document would be strengthened by making an unqualified commitment to human rights, while simultaneously acknowledging that such rights, as they are understood by the international community, are the minimum required for the flourishing of human dignity. The church’s mission then, is aligned with shared works of justice and peace, but also extends to both persons and communities, embodying and encouraging communities that bear the fruits of the Spirit, “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control,” (Gal 5:22-23) which form the virtues of the Christian life.

The document leaves the impression that the Orthodox mission is to defend human dignity only when it does not conflict with its own interest.  This is especially found in the condemnation of discrimination. Denouncing violence and injustice, hatred, enmity or intolerance (5.1), “The Orthodox Church confesses that every person, regardless of color, religion, race, gender, ethnicity, and language, is created in the image and likeness of God, and enjoys equal rights in society” (5.2). What follows in the section 3 is, then, surprising: “The Church, in the spirit of respecting human rights and equal treatment of all values the application of these principles in the light of her teaching on the sacraments, the family, the role of both genders in the Church, and the overall principles of Church tradition. The Church has the right to proclaim and witness to her teaching in the public sphere.” In other words: since tradition appears to teach practices which advocates of human rights consider discriminatory, the church not only maintains the application of its own principles, but reserves the right to preach these publicly.

The document could be strengthened by acknowledging that some traditions found in the church, itself, are historically and culturally dependent and have, at times, diminished the dignity of the other.  For instance, the boldness, honesty, and humility of the Inter-orthodox Rhodes Consultation of 1988, “The Place of Women in the Orthodox Church,” acknowledges that “owing to human weakness and sinfulness, Christian communities have not always and in all places been able to suppress effectively ideas, manners, and customs, historical developments and social conditions which have resulted in practical discrimination against women” (The Place of Women in the Orthodox Church, B.VII.24).  Furthermore, Section 6.14 is overly broad.  It condemns efforts “to legalize and in certain Christian communities to justify theologically other forms of human cohabitation” as undermining the “divinely-granted institution of the family,” without ever mentioning that such arrangements may be desired or necessary for companionship, financial stability, or especially in response to the threat of family violence which puts women and children in particular jeopardy.  Such living arrangements, when undertaken with love and mutual respect, can also include meaningful religious development for the people involved:  committed parish/ecclesial involvement, shared devotional piety, and the cultivation of life lived in the service of love of God.

Thus, the document’s claims to solidarity, shared anxiety and commitment to compassion for all of God’s creation are undermined by its selective understanding of human rights and its refusal to acknowledge the shortcomings of Orthodox in these areas.  It undermines the longstanding engagement of Orthodox theologians and pastors with the world, shaped by the world, so that it may exist and live for the life of the world. Unfortunately, by repeated contrasts between the church and a secular, violent, morally-lax world, this document tends to encourage a church turned in on itself rather than turned outward to engage truly in service.  It is unfortunate, but perhaps telling, that “freedom understood as permissiveness” (8.13) is corrected simply by a reminder that freedom comes with responsibility. Rather, in light of the deifying purpose of the Incarnation, and the hope it offers, would that this document offered a vision of freedom for the other, freedom not to fear the “infinite anxiety” (2.2) which fills humanity, but freedom to love the other with “joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.”

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 authors

  • Bryce E. Rich

    Bryce E. Rich

    Orthodox Theologian

    Bryce E. Rich holds a PhD in Theology from the University of Chicago. His specializations include historical theology of the late-antique and medieval periods, queer theory and theologies, and modern religious thought. His first book, Gender Essentialism and Orthodoxy: Beyond Male and Female, is ...

    Read author's full bio and see articles by this author
  • David Dunn

    David Dunn

    independent scholar

    David J. Dunn is an independent scholar who writes on Orthodoxy and religion and politics.

    Read author's full bio and see articles by this author
  • Maria McDowell

    Maria McDowell

    Independent scholar of Christian ethics and Orthodox theology and communicant in the Episcopal Church U.S.A.

    Maria McDowell is an independent scholar of Christian ethics and Orthodox theology. She belonged for many years to the Orthodox Church and is now a communicant in the Episcopal Church U.S.A..

    Read author's full bio and see articles by this author
  • Very Rev. Dr. Robert Arida

    Very Rev. Dr. Robert Arida

    Retired Dean of Holy Trinity Cathedral in Boston

    Father Robert M. Arida is the retired dean of Holy Trinity Orthodox Cathedral (OCA) in Boston, Massachusetts. During his almost 40 year tenure as dean, he preached at Harvard’s Memorial Church and from other distinguished pulpits. He has guest lectured on the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church in ...

    Read author's full bio and see articles by this author
  • Dr. Susan Ashbrook Harvey

    Dr. Susan Ashbrook Harvey

    Willard Prescott and Annie McClelland Professor of History and Religion at Brown University

    Susan Ashbrook Harvey is Willard Prescott and Annie McClelland Professor of History and Religion at Brown University. She specializes in late antique and Byzantine Christianity, with Syriac studies as her particular focus. She has published widely on topics relating to asceticism, hagiography, women...

    Read author's full bio and see articles by this author
  • Teva Regule

    Teva Regule

    Doctoral candidate in the Theology department at Boston College

    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 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

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