Moscow and Constantinople: Who Stands to Gain?

On January 6, 2019, His All-holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew, on behalf of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, will formally issue the Tomos (or "Proclamation") of Autocephaly for the newly-constituted Church of Ukraine to the newly-elected primatial hierarch of this new autocephalous Church, His Beatitude Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kiev.

The event is most controversial, perhaps the most serious controversy affecting the Orthodox world during my lifetime, and has already resulted in the Moscow Patriarchate essentially excommunicating the Ecumenical Patriarchate (and all its clergy and faithful).  The Patriarchate of Moscow has protested the move on several grounds, accusing the Ecumenical Patriarchate (and His All-holiness Patriarch Bartholomew personally) of all sorts of motives (political and even financial!) and violations of the Holy Canons.  The Ecumenical Patriarchate has defended itself by claiming canonical and traditional prerogatives.

Without any doubt, this is a "political" controversy, for the rivalry between Moscow and Constantinople is long standing--centuries long in some respects.  Likewise, there is a continuing dispute between the Ukrainian and Russian governments.  Without doubt, the accusations and defenses of all sides (Moscow, Constantinople, the various Ukrainian groups involved) are messy, complicated, and subject to a number of interpretations.  At least from an international "public relations" perspective, this has not been the Orthodox Church's finest hour.

As a clergyman formally under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, I take the side of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but not out of any "blind loyalty."  In fact, some of the arguments the Ecumenical Patriarchate has made in defense of its actions seem somewhat strained: reassertion of canonical prerogatives essentially ignored for over three centuries struck me as quite curious.  After all, up until just a few months ago, the Ecumenical Patriarchate--at least publicly--considered two of the three Orthodox "jurisdictions" in Ukraine to be schismatic or uncanonical, just as the Moscow Patriarchate did.  Technically, the reassertion of canonical "rights" may have been necessary, but it is not the strong argument in the matter.

In such cases, where various aspersions and motives have been thrown around by the Moscow Patriarchate and others, I think it is simpler to ask who has what to gain in such matters.  And for this writer, it seems to me that rather than gaining anything, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is actually the only side in the controversy willing to give anything away.

From a purely ecclesiastical and canonical perspective, declaring the Ukrainian Church autocephalous actually creates a situation where Constantinople will no longer have any canonical prerogatives or "rights" in Ukraine, apart from the ability to hear "appeals" of hierarchs on canonical matters--and even this prerogative is contested by Moscow and some others.  In any case, an autocephalous church is completely self-ruling, and elects its own "head" and hierarchal primate.  From an administrative point of view, once Constantinople declares the Ukrainian Church autocephalous, it ceases to have any "rights" or prerogatives in that territory.  Unless requested, the Ecumenical Patriarchate will have no say regarding any aspect of the internal life of the Ukrainian Church.

Of course, the Ecumenical Patriarchate can expect some gain in the matter, but what is gained will be things such as the gratitude of those Ukrainians who desire to have their own autocephalous church.  Because this controversy undoubtedly involves secular politics (and there is a de facto war occurring between Ukraine and Russia), the Ecumenical Patriarchate has already received the gratitude of the secular leadership of Ukraine.  The Ukrainian government did also provide the Ecumenical Patriarchate the use of an ancient church in Kiev, but honestly this could not have been a major motivation!  The United States government applauded the move, but mostly because Russia was against it, and that rivalry is escalating to a degree not seen since the end of the Cold War.  NATO countries might sympathize as well in this geopolitical struggle, and the Ecumenical Patriarch has earned some goodwill.

But none of that, for me, compares to the pastoral accomplishment that many commentators seem to ignore.  Basically, since the independence of Ukraine, there have been three Orthodox "jurisdictions" claiming legitimacy and essentially not in communion with each other.  Whatever the actual numbers, there is no doubt that millions of Ukrainian Orthodox were negatively affected by these schisms and considered outside the communion of the Orthodox Church.  By recognizing bishops that formally and formerly were in schism with the rest of the Orthodox world, millions of Ukrainian Orthodox faithful were recognized as Orthodox by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  The Unification Synod held recently, in preparation for the declaration of autocephaly, brought at least two of the three "jurisdictions" together--those that stood opposed to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.

So now, not counting a sizeable Ukrainian (Byzantine) Catholic Church (known as Uniates, for they appear identical to Eastern Orthodox but are in union with Rome) in the country, the Ecumenical Patriarchate now essentially recognizes all Orthodox Christians in the country as "canonical."  On January 6, 2019, there will be two such groups: one autocephalous church recognized as such by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and one "autonomous" church under the formal jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.  After all, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has not severed communion with anyone in this matter, including the Ukrainians united still to Moscow.

What the Ecumenical Patriarchate has done, however, is most significant.  It has decided, essentially and canonically, to give up its right to being involved in this matter.  It will be up to the Ukrainians themselves to solve the remaining "jurisdictional" problem and schism.  Even if one is inclined to view this matter as one of an uncanonical "interference" by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ukraine, there can be no doubt that once autocephaly is proclaimed and formally recognized, the Ecumenical Patriarchate cannot "interfere" or intervene on any Ukrainian matter without request and invitation.  In effect, it has tied its own hands in this matter and relinquished any "rights."

The situation in Ukraine is quite complicated, involving both ecclesiastical and civil disputes. Yet the ecclesiastical dispute, as complicated and unseemly as it seems, comes down to this: Moscow has only asserted its rights and its "possession" (and by Moscow, we must consider the Patriarchate and government to be in lock-step as has been amply demonstrated).  It has not addressed the reality of millions of faithful being formally outside the communion of the Church.  Constantinople, in contrast, brought millions of faithful back into communion and, at the same time, allowed the Ukrainians the opportunity through self-rule and self-determination, to solve their own problems.  Those problems will not disappear anytime soon.  But this significant first step must be credited to the Ecumenical Patriarchate which, contrary interpretations of the canons aside, has taken the moral high ground.

Where Credit is Due...

One of my previous blogs was highly critical of an article by Dr. Valerie Karras (see here).  While I stand by my observations in that blog, in all fairness I do believe in giving credit where credit is due, and therefore I would note two things.

First, in my prior observations, I did concede that Dr. Karras' comments on the historicity of the female diaconate were sound, fully consistent with the scholarship of now numerous voices of both women and men within the Church.  Whether one agrees with contemporary arguments for the ordination of women to the Holy Diaconate, the history of the order is no longer seriously debated.

Second, in a more recent article appearing on the "Public Orthodoxy" website (found here), Dr. Karras' argues cogently for the broad re-establishment of the order of female deacons within the contemporary Church, and her argument has much merit.  She is to be credited with making this argument without resorting, as she has tended to do in previous work, to debatable or even somewhat dubious presuppositions and theological analyses.

I would, however, make two comments of a critical nature in order to improve an opinion with which I generally agree in principle:

1.  Subordination is not necessarily negative as Dr. Karras states, while "domination" and oppression are.
2.  It is unclear if any of the Holy Orders of the Church are "Ideally,...full-time, paid ministers..."

First, Dr. Karras addresses one contemporary criticism for restoring female deacons as normative in the life of the Church by rightly noting that what I would deem "oppressive domination" of male over female is a result of the primordial fall of humanity.  On this, with Saint John Chrysostom whom Dr. Karras quotes in this regard, all Orthodox can agree:

"Wherefore you see, she was not subjected as soon as she was made; nor, when He brought her to the man, did either she hear any such thing from God, nor did the man say any such word to her: he said indeed that she was 'bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh:' (Gen. 2:23) but of rule or subjection he nowhere made mention to her (Homily on I Corinthians).

However, Dr. Karras' summation of this, in light of likewise undisputed (an indisputable!) doctrine of the Orthodox Tradition, is problematic when she writes:

"Domination and subordination, therefore, are negative consequences of the Fall which should no more be theologically enshrined as normative for male-female relationships than death or disease (other biblical consequences of the Fall) should be theologically normative for the human body."

Domination, in the sense of "subjection" as found in her quotation of Saint John above, is certainly a negative consequence of the Fall.  This is not true, however, of the concept of "subordination" which is broader and not necessarily negative at all if we consider that the word literally involves an "ordering" of something, "subordination" meaning to come below another in order.  Indeed, deacons and presbyters are, in the Eucharistic assembly, subordinate to the Bishop.  And while sharing of one essence (ousia) and will (thelema) among the Divine Persons points to communion and the unicity of God, there is an "economic" subordination of the divine Son and Spirit to the Father. 

In short, the idea of "subjection" in the patristic quotation she uses is not identical to the idea of subordination.

Second, it is clear that Dr. Karras would prefer that female deacons "ideally" attain the same "status" as other members of the clergy in the so-called "major orders" of the Deacon, Presbyter, and Bishop.  On this we can agree; again, in principle.  I would just pause before suggesting that any of the Holy Orders are "ideally...full-time, paid ministers..." as she writes.

In the contemporary Church, it is more common for Presbyters and Bishops, if not always Deacons, to be "full-time" professionals, though this is not always the case.  Many deacons and presbyters ("priests") are actually "part-time" professionals, and some are not technically "professional" at all as they do not receive financial compensation for this sacred service to the Church.  (Indeed, the ordained clergy in monasteries would largely fall into this "non-professional" category.)

Nonetheless, the general point Dr. Karras intends to make is clear and fair: ordained deacons of either sex (male, female) should be respected in like manner.

These criticisms focus on but two semantic issues, and do not negate the thrust of Dr. Karras' argument which, in contrast to some other writings and opinions, here is fully consistent with the "mainstream" of Orthodox Tradition.

This is not to dismiss other voices in the contemporary debate about restoring the female diaconate and the means by which this might be accomplished.  The issue is actually more complicated than many advocates would suggest.  Complicated, however, does not mean impossible or unworthy of serious consideration.  It does appear that a consensus has emerged in the last half-century: in theory, the Church has and can (and apparently, from time to time, does) ordain women to the Holy Order of the Diaconate, and now probably should for good reason.  Likewise, for too long the Diaconate has been woefully neglected even when it comes to ordaining males to this Holy Order. 

In any case, it will take some time for a consensus to emerge (considering the number of dissenting voices) as to how this may be properly effected for the good of the Holy Church without causing scandal and schism (if only at a local, grassroots level).  Still, this is progress from "if possible" to "how to implement."  In all likelihood, the best manner will be consistent with the emergence in the first two centuries of Church history of Holy Orders in the manner we know them now following the Apostolic age.  Indeed, it took a few centuries for the ecclesiological "order" to which we are now accustomed (for example, the structure of deacon, presbyter, bishop; or parish, diocese, patriarchate) to be universally established.

Even in the New Testament, we can witness a diversity in ministries emerging after the disappearance of the Apostles.  Subsequent developments of "formal" ministries and "offices" throughout the Church were, in fact, uneven and just as diverse.  It was not only the female diaconate (which never seems to have been truly "universal" in the Church) which faded away with time, but also other once-common ministries such as the "exorcist," not to mention the itinerant "prophet" (and "prophetess"?).

One thing does seem clear with hindsight in the twenty-first century.  For too long, though perhaps for comprehensible historical reasons, the Church "settled" on the formal, ordained ministers of deacon, presbyter, and bishop as normative.  Perhaps there was no need during previous centuries to consider others, though the Church has always been served in those times by informal ministers and varied ministries.  Perhaps the time has come, in light of contemporary need, to consider this normative structure and make adjustments for the well-being of the Church.

Dr. Karras, preceded by many others, is certainly right to note that the life and lifestyles of women in the vast majority of the world have changed considerably, especially in the last century or so.  The Church is right to consider the proper means of ministering to them and to all persons in the most effective and appropriate manner.  I, for one, see the "push" for the restoration of the female diaconate as a most positive, hopeful sign no matter where the debate may ultimately lead.