Against Religion - Alienation of the Ecclesial Event (Yannaras)

CHRISTOS YANNARAS

A

g a in s t

R eligio n

THE ALIENATION OF THE ECCLESIAL EVENT

Translated by Norman Russell

m

O K TM O noX

PRESS

H O LY C R O SS O R T H O D O X PR ESS

Brookline, Massachusetts

© 2013 H o ly C r o s s O r t h o d o x P re ss

Contents

Published by Holy Cross Orthodox Press 50 Goddard Avenue Brookline, Massachusetts 02445 ISBN-13 978-1-935317-40-1 ISBN-10 1-935317-40-7 Originally published in Greek as Enantia ste threskeia, Ikaros, Athens, 2006.

1. Religiosity All rights reserved. No part o f this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any m eans—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews. On the cover: Pollock, Jackson (1912-1956) © ARS, NY. The Flame, c. 1934-38. Oil on canvas mounted on fiberboard, 20 1/2x30” (51.1 x 76.2 cm). Enid A. HauptFund. © Pollock-Krasner Foundation / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York The Museum o f Modern Art, New York, NY, U.S.A. Digital Image © The Museum o f Modern Art/Licensed by SCALA / Art Resource, NY

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Giannaras, Chrestos, 1935[Enantia ste threskeia. English] Against religion : the alienation of the ecclesial event / Christos Yannaras ; translated by Norman Russell, pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-935317-40-1 1. Religion. I. Title. BL48.G4913 2013 2 0 0 —dc23

^

1.1 A n Instinctive N e e d . . .

1

1 .2 . . . Always Centered on the Individual

s

1.3 Nonrational Thought and the Emotions

lo

1.4 The Arm ored Shell o f Authority

j6

2. T he Ecclesial Event

21

2.1 The Reversal o f Religious Terms

21

2.2 Historical Realism

29

2.3 Relativity o f Language and Priority o f Experience

34

2.4 Authority as Service

4 j

3. T he R eligio nizatio n o f the Ecclesial Event: The S y m p t o m s

4g

3.1 Faith as Ideology

49

3. 2 Experience as a Psychological Construct

57

3.3 Salvation as a Reward for the Individual

63

3 A The Eucharistic Assem bly as a Sacred Rite

71

3.5 Art In the Service of Impressing, Teaching,

and Stirring the Emotions 3.6 The Eclipse of the Parish

84 g8

Contents

vi

3.7 The Idolization of Tradition

105

3.8 The Demonization of Sexuality

118

4. T h e R eligionization o f the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

13 0

Chapter 1

4.1 The Judaizers

130

4.2 Religio Imperii

135

4.3 Augustine

143

4.4 Ideological Catholicity

1 51

4.5 Pietism

163

5. O rt h o d o x is m : T h e R eligio nizatio n o f Ecclesial O r t h o d o x y

16 9

5.1 The Codified Fossilization of O ur Heritage

169

5.2 Confessionalism

176

5.3 The Reversal of Ecclesial Criteria and Objectives

182

5.4 The Popularity of the Philokalia in the West

188

6 . C an the Ecclesial Event A c c o m m o d a t e

Natural Religiosity? B ibliograp hy Index

Religiosity

200 205

210

1.1. An Instinctive N eed. . . Religiosity is a natural hum an need, a need that is innate and in­ stinctive within us. The n eeds we call natural, innate, an d instinctive are those that are not controlled by reason an d the will. They are em bedded in us as im perative dem ands, w ithin the functioning o f our biological being. Psychologists su m m arize the drives that determ ine hum an ­ ity’s psychosom atic structure as two basic in stincts: they speak o f an instinct o f self-preservation and an instinct o f self-perpetuation. Religiosity m ay be seen as a m an ifestation o f the instinct o f selfpreservation. It belongs to the reflexes that have developed in hu ­ m an nature (our autom atic, involuntary psychosom atic reactions) so as to ensure survival. Religiosity is an alogous to hunger, thirst, the fear o f illness and pain, or terror in the face o f death. W hy? A tentative, necessarily schem atic but not arbitrary explanation m ight run as follows: Man sees his existence threatened by pow ers or factors that he cannot control. H is own natural pow ers do not suffice to avert illness, pain, and death. He therefore resorts to im aginary powers that can offer hope o f protection, a reassurance that com es from au tosu ggestion . He con siders the c au ses o f the threats that his own

2

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

nature cann ot control a s supernatural, and, moreover, he person i­ fies them . T hat is, he sets them w ithin a pattern o f rational rela­ tion s that he know s how to m an age effectively. U sing the logic o f relations betw een hum an beings, M an a t­ tem p ts to tam e the forces an d factors that threaten him . O r else he su p p o ses that there are other contrary forces and factors (always personified) able to overcom e and neutralize the threats. He seeks to win th em over to his side so th at they will protect him. Powers that are threaten ing to hum an bein gs include m any natural phenom ena, such as earthquakes, storm s, fire, floods, thunderbolts, drought, and fam ine. They also include the effects o f the dysfunctioning or decay o f M an’s biological being: sickness, aging, disabilities, inherited defects. M an h as the instinctive need to attribute th ese to nonnatural regulators o f w hat ap p ears to be chance: either to inexplicable factors h ostile to M an or to friendly, beneficent pow ers that nevertheless test him or “tem p t” him. M an w ants to have good relations with th ese hypothetical su ­ pern atural factors that are favorably or unfavorably disp osed to ­ w ard him . H is instinct o f self-preservation im p o ses th is u pon him a s an innate need. He w ants to constantly win their sym pathy and their good will, or at least not to provoke their op position and an ­ ger. However advanced people m ay be in intellectual developm ent, critical thought, or scientific knowledge, w hen faced with m ortal dan ger they resort instinctively to som e supern atural protector. (It h as rightly been observed that “when a plane enters a zone o f v io ­ lent turbulence, nobody on board is an a th e ist!”) Referring back to supern atural bein gs is hypothetical but con sis­ tent with hum an logic. T hat is, it satisfies M an’s need (and it is also natural) to interpret the natural word aroun d him , to attribute ra­ tionally to the sam e bein gs (bein gs in accessible to sen sory verifica­ tion) even the cau se o f the reality o f all that exists: the creation and preservation o f a world that h as been brought into bein g by them , or the direction and preservation o f a w orld that is self-existent. The unknown frightens M an, especially ignorance o f cau se an d purpose. H um an nature defen ds itse lf w ith know ledge; it u ses it to an ticip ate dangers, and therefore reacts again st ignorance, ex­

Religiosity

3

periencing it as a threat. It cann ot bear leaving w hatever threatens it sh rouded in obscurity. It cannot endure treating the decay and transience o f existence as enigm atic. In the face o f death, nature generates panic, the m ind-reeling effect o f confronting the absurd. By su p p o sin g the existence o f supern atural beings, even if w ith­ out the su pport o f intellectual hypotheses, M an con soles h im self an d assu ag es the fear provoked by ignorance. If any evil threaten­ ing M an h as a supern atural cau se or agency, then it is reasonable to think that the sam e supern atural factors that provoke it or perm it it also have the power to deflect it. Consequently, for M an to find ways o f m ollifying an d w inning over th ese factors, he n eeds som e equivalent force th at can “con­ trol or m an age” supern atural powers. M an seeks the pow er and capacity to render these supern atural factors su b ject to the goal o f his own salvation from evil, his own “eternal” happiness. T his power, this capacity, is w hat is dem anded by religious need, and it is th is that the in stitutionalized religions prom ise. Religion m ay be defined a s h um an ity’s natural (instinctive) need (1) to su p p o se that there are factors that generate existence and ex­ istent things, together with the evil that is intertw ined with the fact o f existence; an d (2) to extrapolate from th is rational su pposition m eth ods and practices for the “m an agem en t” o f these supern atural factors, so th at h opes o f h um an ity’s salvation from evil, o f h u m an ­ ity’s unending happiness, are built up. Som ew here w ithin th ese b ou n daries we m ay locate the logic o f religion, a logic th at is biologically determ ined, which is why the ph enom enon o f religion h as always existed in every hum an culture. The com m on m arks o f the ph enom en on , com m on at all tim es and in all places, are to be found in the (practical) m an ifestations that depend on the instinctive n eeds that give rise to it: First is M an’s need to know the factors that determ ine his existence. We need to p o sse ss reliable knowledge, to be reassured by certain­ ties. We need to have at our disp osal an effective an tidote to the fear that arises from Ignorance, to the panic generated by the dark and enigm atic asp ect! o f m etaphysical theories.

A

4

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

T h at is why every religion offers (and p resu ppo ses) d o gm as: a priori received teaching, axiom atic definitions, tru th s that do not adm it o f d o u bt or o f any control for their confirm ation or falsifica­ tion. The religions assu re people o f that which the n eeds o f hum an nature dem and: guaran teed certainties with regard to m etaphysics. Even if they have no su pport in com m on experience or reason, they are “tru th s” that the infallible authority o f the representatives o f the “sacred ” or a supern atural “revelation” turn into certainties. A nd for the sacred to be “objectively” pinpointed, it is identi­ fied w ith the form ulation o f d o g m as— precisely in the way the sa­ cred is also objectified in an idol perceptible to the sen ses (as a statue, a representation, or a fetish). The letter o f the form ulation is m ade into an idol, in such a way th at fidelity to the letter guaran tees the psychological security o f p o ssessin g the truth and m eritorious reverence o f faithfulness. T his is the reason why, in every age an d indeed in every society, religious people are ready to slaughter each other for chance of­ fenses again st the letter o f religious d o gm as; why they have been ready to tear to pieces, to stone, to burn at the stake the authors o f these offenses; why they have been ready to denounce, to devise the m ost terrible m eth ods o f execution (physically an d m orally) o f their “heretical” oppon en ts. The instinctive panic that seizes people w hen the psychological certainties o f their religious “con­ viction s” are shaken ap p ears inexorable, an d their aggressiven ess tow ard th o se who try to shake them seem s ferocious. Second is M an’s need to tam e, to win over a s far as possible, the supern atural powers (always personified) th at are assu m ed to be a threat to his existence or a p o ssib le protection for it. T his is the need to win their approval and sym pathy by the m ean s th at M an h im self know s: by sacrificing (destroying by fire) the b est o f the fruits o f the earth that he cultivates, or the choicest o f the an im als he rears, or— p erh aps— som eon e beloved over w hom he h as a u ­ thority (son, daughter, wife, or slave). O r he m ight internalize the sacrifice, expressing it as the privation o f desired food (fasting) or o f sexual pleasure (chastity).

Religiosity

5

The logic o f sacrifice is a logic o f dem on stratin g a devotion o f the sen ses, o f proving in a practical way that G od is m ore precious than the b est an d dearest that M an has. There is also indirectly d is­ cernible a logic o f bribery. By the quality o f the gift he offers, Man places God under an obligation, ju st as by giving gifts he places those hum an bein gs on w hom he d ep en d s under an obligation (the king, the tyrant, the m aster). M an offers som eth in g the privation o f which is painful to him , in such a way that the specific god should perceive the greatn ess o f his devotion and su b m issio n to the sacred. Together with the sacrifice, or in stead o f the sacrifice, M an m ay express his devotion and su b m issio n by som e cerem onial logos— by all the capacities for “logical” expression that he p o ssesses: the lo­ g o s o f poetry, o f m usic, o f dancing, o f dram a; the logos o f painting, o f architecture, and o f sculpture. We call worship o f the transcen ­ dent (a con stituent o f the identity o f religion) the actual referring to it o f prayers, supplication s, doxologies, and praises, in the vari­ o u s m odes o f h um an expression — hym ns, dances, and cerem onial rites—and in places and buildings o f the greatest po ssib le m ajesty an d beauty. Third is M an s need to secure the favor o f the divine not only by w orship but also by disciplin ing his everyday behavior through reg­ ulative prin ciples that he believes reflect the divine will an d desire. We call m orality (another elem ent con stitutin g the identity o f re­ ligion) the codified com m an dm en ts (both preceptive an d prohibi­ tive) that M an accepts a s law laid down by God. M oral law h as to be o f divine au th o rsh ip—w ritten by God him ­ self, or dictated by him literally, or (at least) com posed under divine inspiration. For it is only thus that it offers the psychological se lf the stron gest po ssib le gu aran tees o f security: if observin g the law is obedience to the will o f God, then whoever observes the law is undoubtedly ju dged to be a worthy person, and observin g the law con stitutes a m eritorious individual achievem ent o f virtue. O n the b asis o f the law, virtue is a provable certainty; it is certified and m easured objectively, offering to the individual the psychological security o f being covered with regard to the transcendent.

A

6

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

Perhaps there is som eth in g else too. People who obey the com ­ m an dm en ts o f the divine law (the principles o f religious m orality) often have the certainty (con sciou s or unconscious) that the d i­ vine” owes th em som e reward for their virtues. They feel th at God is bou n d by the m erits o f hum an beings, obliged to guarantee them protection, to help them through life’s difficulties, and to prolon g their adm irable existence everlastingly. The truths that the clinical experience o f m odern psychology re­ veals with regard to the instinctive character o f the hum an need for a m oral law w ith religious su ppo rt call for a special study on how and why the law determ in es on the level o f the unconscious the relationship between the ego and the superego, on how the su ­ perego, “sad istically” internalizing the law, b ecom es an instrum ent o f ju dgm en t or punishm en t and forces on the ego a “m aso ch istic” withdrawal through feelings o f guilt (Schuldgefiihl), or even a need for self-punishm ent (Strafbediirfnis)} It is not fortuitous th at in alm ost every religion the typically sad om aso ch istic syndrom e arises out o f guilt-redem ption-justification . T his is a syndrom e whereby the ego unconsciously and m asoch istically provokes guilt (always with reference to the law), so th at by paying the penalty (however painful) th at the superego d em an ds for the redem ption o f the guilt, the ego m ay win a legally assu red justification.

1.2. . . . Always Centered on the Individual R eligiosity is fundam entally an innate urge, an instinctive need, and is therefore by definition centered on the individual. Like all our inherent drives, it is an indicative m ark o f hum an n ature— it characterizes hum anity a s a whole. But the biological intention-

1. Sigmund Freud, Mourning and Melancholia, in vol. 14 o f the Standard Edi­ tion o f the Complete Psychological Works o f Sigmund Freud, ed. James Strachey (London: Hogarth Press and the Institute o f Psycho-Analysis, 1953-74); The Ego and the Id, chap. 5, in vol. 20 of the Standard Edition, trans. Strachey «t #1.

Religiosity

7

ality o f every drive, even if it serves the species, is expressed as a param oun t need o f the individual. A s a m an ifestation o f the in stinct o f self-preservation, religios­ ity aim s a t arm orin g individuals again st the insecurity and fears that are bred by ignorance, again st the terror and panic o f death. Religion arm ors individuals with m etaphysical “convictions,” with m oral “principles,” with certainty regarding the eternal prolon ga­ tion o f their existence. It nourishes the superego, offering self-con­ fidence, pleasu rable self-satisfaction , a sanctified narcissism . The typical religious person operates with his individual self, his ego, as the axis and center o f every asp ect o f his life. This is b e ­ cau se religion offers him a legitim ate justification o f egocentricity, for it se ts before him the goal and obligation o f individual salvation. The juridical character o f religious m orality im po ses an individual notion o f salvation as self-evident. Those who are saved are those who keep the law, and keeping the law is an individual achieve­ ment. The individual obeys the stipu latio n s o f the law in order to have objective (assured, m easu rable) presu ppo sitio n s for salvation. An individual who does not observe the law cann ot be saved, how­ ever m any interm ediaries intercede for his salvation. The individualistic character o f salvation is strengthened by re­ course to the freedom o f the individual, which is recourse to sound logic when freedom is defined as the power to m ake individual choices. Only such a version o f freedom offers the su pport o f psy­ chological certainty to the religious individual, an d consequently this version o f freedom always accom pan ies natural, instinctive re­ ligiosity in the form o f a typical syndrom e. In the religious perspective the individual ch ooses his convic­ tions, that is, his “faith.” He ch ooses to keep the m oral com m an d­ m ents o f his faith; he ch ooses to rem ain faithful to his choices. W hoever freely ch ooses u n b elief or agnosticism , disobedience to the divine law, also freely ch ooses the refusal o f his salvation, his eternal condem nation. This im placable logic, also m anifestly a product o f the instincts o f self-preservation and self-protection, functions as a presu p p o­ sition for religious faith and juridical virtue to work together to arm or-plate the ego, Any form o f m ental reservation, any doubt

8

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

ab ou t the individualistic, self-chosen character o f salvation, op en s up en orm ous ch asm s o f insecurity, uncertainty, and fear in the in­ dividual. If one’s freedom o f choice proves in practice to be sh ot through with relativity, if choices are determ ined not only by the con scious will o f the individual b u t also by the unconscious (by inherited d is­ position s, repressed desires, childhood traum as), if on e s fam ily en ­ vironm ent, social background, and cultural m ilieu also play a role, then any individual achievem ents o f the religious person are also relativized. It becom es difficult for such achievem ents to function as arm or p latin g for the ego. A u gu stin e too k the logic o f th e freedom o f choice to its u lti­ m ate con clu sion , to the con clusion , for exam ple, th at the saved in heaven feel joy a t see in g the torm en ts o f sin n ers in hell! In a m an ner ab so lu tely con sisten t w ith th e logic o f the in stin cts, n atu ­ ral religiosity is in dividu alistic even to the poin t o f inhum anity an d sad ism . It allow s no room even for n atu ral sym pathy or com ­ passio n . Even w hen the religious in dividual h as pity on the poor, w hen he carries ou t the ac ts o f altru ism an d ph ilan thropy laid dow n by the law, he still h as an eye on m erit, he still serves his ego — a s b ecom es im m ediately ob v iou s from the calcu lated, ra tio ­ nally con trolled m an ner o f h is offering. He can “give away all th at he has,” he can “deliver his body to be burn ed,” not b ecau se he really loves, but only so th at th e achievem ent can be credited to him a s an individual. Instinctive an d inexorable, hum an ity’s religious need d em an ds that the individual should have (1) objective certainty th at he is assu rin g his salvation and (2) irrefutable argu m en ts for the correctn ess and validity o f his m etaphysical convictions. O bjective proofs o f salvation are provided by “good w orks”: the individual’s fidelity to the letter o f the form ulation s o f religious dogm as, the individual’s con sisten t application o f the com m an d­ m en ts o f the m oral law, his observin g o f the obligation s o f w or­ ship. W ithout the individual’s am assin g o f such “good works,” the psychological security o f atom ic salvation is not attained. And the m ore torm en ting the fear and insecurity (from a com bination o f

Religiosity

9

m any factors), the m ore an xiou s is the effort to achieve visible and m easurable “good works.” Fidelity to the letter o f dogm atic teach in g is a m eritorious achieve­ m ent for the individual, and therefore every dogm atic “orthodoxy” m akes this (the certainty o f the protection o f the individual) its boast. This boast, however— the certainty that it en gen ders— also dem an ds the su pport o f objective (apodictic) evidence for w hat has been received. T hus religiosity is very often intertw ined with claim ­ ing rational validity for m etaphysical convictions, with prioritizing intellectualist m eth ods o f proving this validity. Faith ceases to be a struggle to estab lish relations o f tru st and becom es identified with intellectual convictions— it b ecom es the self-evident synonym o f ideology. The doctrin es are understood a s a priori (logically n ecessary) received teachings, uncontrolled axi­ om s, obligatory ideological principles. A nd as in every ideology, the acceptance o f these teach in gs is a person al choice, with the result that religiosity is u nderstood only in term s o f the person al pref­ erence o f the individual. Preference for, an d choice of, religious “faith” is facilitated (so m etim es even com pelled) by rational argu ­ m en ts to coun ter objection s an d reservations, by “p ro o fs” o f im pec­ cable rational coherence— chiefly for the existence o f God. These “proofs” are classified accordin g to the epistem ological field from which they draw their argu m en ts (we have ontological, cosm ologi­ cal, moral, and historical “p roo fs” for the existence o f G od). Blind and ineluctable, the in stinct o f self-preservation im poses on the individual a protective arm orin g o f certainties. And the need for m etaphysical certainties generates religious convictions, together with the defen se o f th ese convictions by syllogistic argu ­ m ents an d the justification o f faith by “scientific” apologetics— it renders theology a sac ra scien tia. It is not fortuitous that the su ­ prem e m an ifestations o f in tellectualism in hum an history are products o f religious need. T his sam e religious need inherently gives rise to schem es and in stitutions designed to defend convictions and prin ciples and im ­ pose them in an active com bative manner. It is not fortuitous that the first forma o f totalitarianism in hum an history are religious.

10

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

The devising o f (that is, the need for) an “infallible” leadership, the juridical control o f thinking, censorship, the index o f prohibited books, the use o f torture a s a m ethod o f interrogation in the trials o f h eretics—these are all o f religious origin. Som etim es the in stin c­ tive need to defend religious convictions lead s to w ars o f atrocious cruelty, ju st a s it leads not only to the m oral but also to the physical annihilation o f those who think differently by a “clean sin g” d eath — the “clean sin g” requiring, for exam ple, that they sh ould be burned alive at the stake. Behind this w hole range o f m an ifestations o f the n atural in­ dividualistic need for religious certainties, w hat predom in ates is always the priority o f rational “objectivity,” an ab so lu te tru st in the atom ic intellect. The religious individual m akes an idol o f his in­ tellectual capacity; he w orships the pow ers o f logical thought. He w ants to place the certainty that his own convictions and his own principles are the only correct on es on unshakable foundations. He w ants to be absolutely sure th at when he defen ds his own convic­ tion s and his own principles, he is upholding the only m etaphysical truth and the highest morality.

1.3. Nonrational Thought and the Emotions The natural individualistic need for religious certainties m akes an idol o f the individual’s m ental capacity; it w orships the pow ers o f the rational m ethod. T his sam e need is very good at nullifying rea­ son; it overturns the rules o f every m ethodical apodictic in order to safeguard even m ore u n assailable certainties. W hat m akes intellectual argu m en ts vulnerable is the way they are constructed. The apodictic force o f a rational proposition is built up by the system atic refutation o f po ssib le ob jection s— the objection is presu pposed as a m ethodological principle o f the proof. T hus every m etaphysical proposition that seeks su pport from the m ethodology o f the positive scien ces is potentially su bject to the requirem ents o f the apodictic m ethodology o f testin g through p o s­ sible objections, objection s that at any given m om ent may be new an d unexpected.

Religiosity

11

The likelihood o f objection s is only circum vented by ab an ­ don in g the rational control o f m etaphysical propositions. This relinquishing becom es apparen t w ithin the context o f religious tradition s a s a trend, “school,” or tendency op posed to the intellec­ tu alism o f apodictic proof. More commonly, however, this trend co­ exists with intellectualism w ithin the sam e tradition — som etim es even w ithin the work o f the sam e great religious teacher or writer. The relinquishing o f the rational control o f m etaphysical p rop ositio n s very often (and seductively) appro p riates the nam e o f fa ith — it becom es synonym ous with faith. Faith is identified in the popu lar u n derstan din g with individual convictions that lie beyond the reach o f any po ssib le application o f system atic logic— they have been chosen by the individual as a priori and undem on strable truths th at are not subject to rational control. The ph rase credo quia absurdum (“I believe b ecau se it is ab su rd ”) su m m arizes this version o f faith versus reason very w ell— faith as bereft o f reason. It is difficult, o f course, for u s to set clear b ou n daries differ­ en tiating the irrational from the supraration al. There is a logic in the denial o f apodictic m eth o ds—a logic, for exam ple, o f recourse to a transcen den t authority with a view to verifying or validating a proposition. Instead o f resortin g to the power o f rational proof, we resort to som e “factor” that tran scen ds the lim itations and the rela­ tivity o f the h um an intellect— a factor that guaran tees whatever the intellect d o es not have the capacity to confirm m ethodically, and m oreover excludes any p o ssib le objection. R ecourse to such a factor o f transcendent authority is n eces­ sarily irrational or nonrational, since it den ies the com m on (con­ ventional) m eth ods o f verification that render know ledge com m u ­ nicable. It is not u nreason able (or incoherent), however, because it obeys the logic o f a subjective m ental choice— the logic o f the denial that m etaph ysics sh ould be su bject to the rules o f perception -understan din g-interpretation th at govern physics. If this d e ­ nial is accepted a s a rational presu pposition for the know ledge o f m etaphysical reality, then the ph rase credo quia absurdum also has rational validity. The epistem ological uncertainty o f religious opinion s lies else­ where. Both in the c a ie o f m etaphysical intellectualism and in the

12

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

case o f rationally “b lin d” faith, we have a s a com m on startin g point or presu ppo sitio n an absolutely subjective choice that is m ade on a nonem pirical level—an individual choice o f w hat is inferred in­ tellectually or is m ethodologically unprovable. In either case the startin g point or p resu ppo sitio n is not the desire to investigate com m on experience, but the satisfaction o f the instinctive need o f the natural individual for m etaphysical certainties— an individual­ istic satisfaction w ithin the context o f the volitional pow ers o f the individual. T he sufficiency o f individual choice is decided on a level prior to that o f the intellectual process. The prelim inary decision is the result o f unconscious psychological operations. Both with regard to m ethodical (intellectual) inference and with regard to the ab an ­ donm en t o f rational m eth ods (for the sake o f recourse to the weight o f superior authority), this psychological need o f the individual for ab solu te security clad s itse lf with certainties. Som etim es such a b ­ solu te certainty is sought in ration alism and som etim es in the re­ jection o f rationalism . Som etim es it is sought in “religious feeling” or “m ysticism ,” som etim es in “intuition” or “in sight” or “existential experience”—always in som e real or hypothetical epistem ic capac­ ity o f the individual. In every case it is concerned with subjective choice exercised by the individual, that is, w ithin a strict fram ew ork o f reference o f atom ic presu ppo sitio n s and intentionalities. Recourse to som e authority respon d s to the need not only for verification or validation but also for the generation o f a religious certainty. The conviction prevalent in religious tradition s th at the know ledge o f m etaphysical truth is conveyed directly from G od as a “grace" (or charism ) to the individual worthy to receive it is char­ acteristic. Individual readiness is a n ecessary condition for the b e ­ stow al o f the gift o f knowledge, for “faith” (or religious certainty) is u nderstood as a divine response to individual m erit. O f course, every kind o f know ledge or cognition o f sen sible an d intelligible reality is always a subjective event (even w hen it is acquired through the attainm ent o f relation as self-transcendence an d self-offering). But for the religious m ental outlook, knowledge a s “grace” is understood (m ore or less) as the m echanistic convey­

Religiosity

13

ance o f a capacity from the unknown transcen den t to the individual hum an bein g— from an individualized pole o f ab solu te knowledge to a pole o f relative and restricted know ledge (rather like the charg­ ing o f a battery). There is also the “logic” o f religious m ysticism , a “lo gic” that covers a broad range o f assertion s, from the identification o f faith with feeling to the certainties deriving from ecstatic states and revela­ tory visions. By the word feelin g (synaisth em a), som ethin g like knowledge or certainty is affirm ed, som ethin g that is unrelated to the infor­ m ation conveyed by the sen ses and the operation o f the intellect; such “know ledge” is only with difficulty distinguished from intense desire and em otional autosuggestion. “We know ” by our feelings som ethin g that draw s us, that attracts us, that gran ts u s an en th u­ siastic psychological sen se o f w ell-being and exaltation, w ithout our being concerned with the shared affirm ation o f the existence or the nonexistence o f the object o f our knowledge, with w hether it is genuine or illusory. M ysticism appears to be a kind o f system atization o f the “cer­ tain ties” that are gained on the em otional level. It broadens the field o f the claim s o f the em otion s relating to cognition, borrow ­ ing the vocabulary o f an explicitly nonrational esotericism , that is, o f a reference to inward (belonging to the “so u l” or the “inner m an”) cap acities o f know ledge with discrete boundaries. The kind o f ph rases that predom in ate are: “the intuition o f interiority,” “the deep self,” “the lim pid operation o f the psyche,” “inner knowledge,” radical inw ardness,” “inner vision,” “the sh udder o f inw ardness,” and so forth— all referring to a herm etically sealed subjectivism . There is no room in m ysticism for the sh aring o f experience, for the shared verification o f individual (esoteric) “knowledge.” And yet this u nm itigated cognitive individualism is presented as an “ex­ perience o f direct know ledge (which has no need o f the com m on lucidity o f inform ation deriving from the intellect and the sen ses), on the b asis o f the “validity” o f an “in trospection ” that is in theory accessible to everybody. Accordingly, it also operates as an altern a­ tive source— clearly superior to intellectualism — o f m etaphysical

14

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

“certain ties” that strengthen the individualistic character o f natural religiosity. W ithin the context o f the convenient popularization o f the m ain lines o f m ysticism , we find a n um ber o f self-evidently sim ­ plistic schem atization s. T he follow ing is a typical exam ple: “We a r­ rive at scientific know ledge through the u se o f reason, at religious know ledge through the em otions.” It is regarded as entirely con ­ sisten t that religious culture (its qualitative/axiological gradation s) sh ould be ju dged a s a con glom eration o f psychological states— that religiosity sh ould be ju dged by “w hat the individual feels, w hat he sees w ithin him self.” There is no concern for w hat unconscious factors sh ape the psychological states o f religious euph oria or reli­ giou s unease. T he m ore im perative the urge for individual security, the m ore is religiosity dom inated by psychological priorities. W hat is e sp e­ cially valued is an em otion al charge, an en th u siastic “reaching up,” an exquisite “exaltation.” Prayer, participation in w orship and the sacram en ts, and even good w orks are evaluated in accordance with the “joy” they guarantee, with the fascination o f m ystical experi­ ence, with the intensity o f the m ajesty that is evoked, with the “feel­ ing” o f inward catharsis, an d with the individual justification that they procure. D ostoevsky set out three m od es (factors or possib ilities) by which we hum an bein gs voluntarily give up our freedom , sellin g it off with pleasure and placin g ourselves in an incontrovertibly su b m is­ sive position : miracle, mystery, and authority— three fundam ental m arks o f the identity o f natural religion, three estab lish ed practices o f organized institutional religion.2 We call miracle a supernatural event, th at which m anifestly go es again st the law o f nature and obliges u s to su bm it to the power an d authority o f the m iracle-w orking agent (w hether person or in­ stitution). A m iracle d o es not leave u s any room for freedom . The supern atural character o f the event forces our natural reason and will to accept the validity and power o f the person or institution 2. “The Grand Inquisitor,” in bk. 5, chap. 5 of The Brothers Karamazov, trans. David McDuff (London: Penguin Books, 2003), 335.

Religiosity

15

working the m iracle a s self-evident—we su bm it to any opinion, order, declaration, or claim , the believability o f which is gu aran ­ teed by the m iracle. T hus a m iracle nullifies faith, if fa ith m ean s the ardu ou s attain m en t o f trust. The thaum aturgic pow er h as to be accepted. You do not have the freedom to en dan ger your relation­ ship with its bearer, which requires you to tru st it and believe it. A m iracle im p o ses only certainties, precisely th o se certainties that are dem anded by the urge o f self-preservation, the urge that m akes the natural individual protect itself. The function o f m ystery is an alogous to this. We call m ystery a ritual, a sacred rite, an act o f w orship in which the religious m ind believes that the tran sm ission o f “grace” is effected from the u n ­ known transcen den t to the individual hum an being. T hat which is transm itted characteristically is not only the illum ination o f suprarational know ledge but also the strengthen ing o f the ability to be m ore con sisten t in on e’s m oral practice, as well as som e kind o f pledge o f eternal salvation. The m ode by which grace is tran sm it­ ted is identified with the ritual, which acquires a veiled or occult character, cloaking that which is en acted in sym bolic m ean in gs an d form s o f w orship that are often intensely em otional. The word m ys­ tery derives from the Greek word myo, which m ean s “I close my eyes”— in the case we are con siderin g here in order to “see” so m e ­ thing not in sen sory term s but by an “interiorized” vision, by an im m ediacy o f cognition. We th u s ab an don any possib ility o f sh ared knowledge gained through the intellect and the sen ses. We ab a n ­ don relations o f com m union, that is, we ab an don the p resu p p o si­ tion o f freedom . The individualistic character o f m ystical exp eri­ ence serves the instinctive need for in disputable certainties w ith a beguiling self-sufficiency. The authority o f in stitu tio n s an d perso n s is the third m e an s by which the p rin cip les an d norm ative ru les o f religion are reco g­ nized and im posed. T h is too resp o n d s to the need o f the n atu ral individual to find security through su b m issio n , to receive a s s u r ­ an ce by voluntarily laying dow n his freedom . W hat is w an ted is the glory, real or con stru cted, o f high esteem , o f consistency, o f effectiven ess— the fam e o f the abilities, o f the m oral an d asc etic achievem ents o f a life o f virtue. For that is how in stitu tio n s an d

16

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

perso n s acquire the validity th at m akes the su b m issio n o f the in di­ vidu al self-evident. O f course, th is glory, so difficult to attain, can be su pplem en ted by im pressive artificial m ean s th at induce psy­ chological su b m issiven ess, such as (everyw here an d at all tim es) vestm en ts, a strictly grad ed hierarchy, an d m ajestic cerem onial. O ften the an tiqu ity alon e o f the in stitution is sufficient: its h is­ toric titles, its cultural pedigree, and the fam o u s figures who have m ade it illustrious. All th ese th in gs are elem en ts o f in disp u tab le authority, o f which the chiefly religious character o f the in stitution or function m agnifies the significance, rendering it an act o f hubris to disobey or q u estion anything.

1.4. The Armored Shell o f Authority Logically contradictory but affirm ed in practice, the greater the uncertainty regarding knowledge, or the insecurity ab ou t the rela­ tivity o f “convictions,” the m ore infrangible the arm ored shell o f authority surrounding in stitution s that guaran tee knowledge and “convictions.” It is logically con trad ictory but psych ologically very obviou s: such an in stitu tio n h as been co n stru cted precisely in ord er to m ake good, as a sovereign au th ority (by its coh esiveness, stru c­ ture, an d effectiven ess), the lack o f certain ty regard in g the know l­ edge an d security o f its convictions. In accordan ce with this, even religio u s in stitu tio n s m u st have their cau sal prin cip le in their need to satisfy the religio u s urges o f in d iv idu als (in the need to overcom e the instinctive fear o f ignorance an d d eath ), an d p er­ h ap s also in the equally in stinctive h u m an d em an d for authority, dom inion, an d pow er— a d em an d th at reflects the im placable law o f “natural selection ”: the survival o f the fittest an d stron gest in­ dividu als and species. Such a theory seem s to explain why th e origin o f socially pow ­ erful religious in stitu tio n s (pow erful p riesth o o d s) is lo st in the dep th s o f preh istory— in stitu tio n alized religion seem s to be in ­ herent in h um an society. R eligious teach in gs are herm eneutic and regulative p ro p o sitio n s th at are am o n g th o se m ost bu rdened with

Religiosity

17

uncertainty, m ost obviously su b ject to the relativity o f lin guistic u sage. T hat is why the religious in stitu tio n s th at exp ress th em and gu aran tee th em need a special authority. T he need for au th o r­ ity easily slip s into a q u est for the pow er to d om in ate. O ften in the cou rse o f history, religious in stitu tio n s have exercised a power greater than th at o f the organ s o f governm ent b elo n gin g to so c i­ ety a s a w hole. People su bm it rather easily to all kinds o f in stitution s that have to do with the exercise o f pow er— in m any cases one could speak o f the pleasure o f su b m ission or o f fanatical su bm ission. W hat expla­ nation m ay be offered for this situ ation ? O ne p o ssib le in terp retatio n is th at su b m issio n relieves the individual o f responsibility, risk, an d freed om — it relieves him from th e fear o f grow ing up, the fear o f com in g o f age. O th e rs— n ot the sam e in d iv id u al— decid e, ch oose, an d risk error. The in dividu al sim ply obeys; he follow s. T he m o th er’s em b race and care, th e fa th e r’s stren g th an d prerogative, the leavin g o f resp o n ­ sib ility for d e c isio n s to th is protective affectio n an d au th o rity— all find a d esirab le su b stitu te in au th o ritativ e in stitu tio n s an d p erso n s. It is a p leasu rab le p o stp o n em en t o f w eaning, a con ve­ nient refu sal to grow up. T he secret o f ou r w illin gn ess to su b m it to an d to obey every form o f au th o rity lies rather in ou r need to find a su b stitu te for patern al an d m atern al protection ; it lies in the fear o f freedom . More than any other kind o f authority, religious in stitutions and priesth oods respond to the natural need o f h um an bein gs for pleasurable su b m ission . The m otives are clear: religious in stitu­ tion s and p riesth oo d s offer deliverance from the fear o f not know­ ing. They offer certainties and convictions (with regard to the in­ accessible transcen den t) clad in the authority o f the sacred or o f revelation. They offer the individual guaran tees o f eternal survival and specific practices for the “objective” secu ring o f th is “salva­ tion.” They have preserved with aston ish in g skill (diachronically, or through the ages) the hum an need for miracle, mystery, and au ­ thority; they encourage an extended (w ithout risks or insecurities) childish dependence on authority figures.

18

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

The au th o rity th at religio u s in stitu tio n s acquire (an d m an ifestly exercise) in so cieties o f every age is a con seq u en ce o f the in vestin g o f religiosity w ith the in d iv idu al’s resolu te need for self-pro tec­ tion. T h at is why any d o u b tin g o f th is au th ority (o f the in stitu ­ tio n s an d th e p erso n s th at em body it) is experien ced as a th reat to the individual, a th reat to th is existen tial security— th o se who are o p p o sed to, or reject, the in stitu tio n s are regarded a s enem ies, often a s m ortal foes. T his ap p ears to be the explanation for the fanaticism , so m e­ tim es the blind and un h esitatin g fanaticism , th at flourishes in re­ ligious environm ents, or for the fact that religious w ars are am ong the m ost horrific in history. The sam e explanation m u st also hold for the phenom enon o f totalitarianism , which as a m ode o f exer­ cisin g power w as born historically from religious in stitutions and continues a s a typical syndrom e in alm o st every form o f organized (with effective executive structures) religious life. By the word totalitarianism I m ean the claim an d (system ati­ cally organized) attem pt o f a governing authority to control the w hole o f life, both public and private, o f th o se under its authority, with the aim o f su bordin ating every asp ect o f life (even the con ­ victions, intentions, and ju dgm en ts o f individuals) to the rules that the authority lays down. The fact th at such a claim is able to be m ade, to be put in place a s a regim e for organizing society as a whole, cann ot sim ply be a result o f im position from above. The com pliance o f in dividuals’ thinking, judgm ent, and intentions with the lines laid down by the authority p resu p p o ses in the first place a social group that willingly (and perh aps with pleasure) is inclined to m ake such a su b m issio n — it is on th is th at the general im po si­ tion o f the claim is based. W ithout th is given critical m ass, or the latent (and perh aps unconscious) inclination to subm ission, no force could im pose and m aintain a totalitarian regim e. Su b m ission and obedience to orders from above is, in m ost in­ stances, a result o f the fear o f com ing o f age, the fear o f freedom — a product o f the instinct o f self-preservation and self-protection. The exercise o f power, however, the ability to m ake oth ers subordinate to you an d lead them , con stitutes an other kind o f pleasure, perhaps

Religiosity

19

superior to any other—a product o f the satisfaction o f the (sim i­ larly blind) in stinct to dom inate. For som eon e to have authority over the thinking, the judgm ent, and the will o f his fellow hum an beings, to exercise a “sp iritu al” authority over them , to dictate the behavior and practices o f their daily life, to dom inate their psych o­ logical attitudes, and to control their relationship with the tran ­ scendent m ust be tantam oun t to an intoxicating sen se o f power and self-assertion. At the sam e tim e, the p erso n who exercises su ch pow er is w or­ sh iped by th o se who have taken p leasu re in su b m ittin g to him . He elicits th eir respect. They h on or him ; they ad m ire him . H is presen ce evokes awe, even ecstasy, ch iefly w hen the au th o rity he w ields is m an ifested a s the exercise not o f secu lar but o f supram u n d an e power, reflectin g a m etaph ysical au th o rity an d ju d g ­ ing the eternal fu tu re o f h u m an bein gs, w h ether they “p erish ” or are “saved.” T he p erso n who exercises su ch pow er is regard ed th ereafter a s a b ein g alm o st beyond the b o u n d s o f th e n atu ral. He is w rapped in the sp len d o r o f the sacred. The im p o sitio n o f his au th ority is irresistib le. The irresistible power o f religious authority is also inevitably sought by individuals who have little or no chance o f w inning the respect o f their fellow hum an bein gs by their own m erits and their own efforts. It is difficult for anyone to ascertain when, unfittingly or unworthily for the sake o f office, individuals o f th is kind (in al­ m ost all the religious tradition s) have assu m ed the external ap p ear­ ances or objective m arks that im m ediately m ake the “form ” o f the functionary stan d out and that render respect for him a require­ ment. Clerical robes as everyday d ress are one such indication, a s is also long hair and a b eard— or, alternatively, a tonsured crown and a clean-shaven face. Bows, hand-kissing, and prostration s have also been adopted to show respect for those who exercise sacral power, while (no dou bt unconsciously) what is also satisfied in this m an ­ ner is the need o f the m any to be confirm ed in their su bm ission and the pleasure o f the few in being recipients o f it. That which is inexpressible, inconceivable, invisible, and incom ­ prehensible, which In the field in which hum anity con ducts its

20

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

m etaphysical qu est, is very easily su b stitu ted by infrangible convic­ tions, sacred dogm as, an d holy canons, the m an agem ent o f which dem an ds an authority reinforced by prerogatives, rights, and the u n d ispu ted power o f im posin g them . N ature—the urge for selfpreservation, for dom inion, for the enjoym ent by the individual o f security an d pleasu re— is all-powerful. It trium phs over our hum an attem pts to break out from the asphyxiatin g b ou n ds o f m ortality

Chapter 2

an d ignorance.

The Ecclesial Event

2.1. The Reversal o f Religious Terms On its first historical appearance, the ecclesial event p o ssessed d is­ tinctive features indicating the reversal o f the term s o f natural, in­ stinctive religiosity. I w ould lo cate th ese distin ctive featu res in th e tex ts th at re­ cord th e experien ce an d w itn ess o f th e first ecclesial com m u n i­ ties. I w ould lo cate th em in th e organ ic stru ctu re an d fu n ction in g o f th ese com m u n ities, in the lan gu ag e by w hich they ex p ressed th em selves an d in the m an n er in w hich th o se w ith experien ce o f the ecclesial event u n d ersto o d , in terp reted , an d ordered its origin al m an ifestatio n . The Greek word ekklesia (ecclesia in its Latinized form ) w as chosen to express not a new religion but a social event— a mode o f relations o f com m union. There had existed earlier the ekklesia tou demou, the popu lar assem bly. The citizens o f Greek cities used to com e together in popu lar assem b lies not only to deliberate, to judge, to m ake decision s on m atters o f public concern, but also above all to con stitute and m anifest the polis, the city: a specific mode o f relations o f com m union, a m ode o f h um an existence and coexistence. Let us p au se to con sider the m eaning conveyed by these words. Polis for the ancient G reeks was not a settlem ent that had grown to

21

22

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

a quantifiable size. It w as a common struggle, the struggle aim ed at attain in g life according to truth. W hat it w anted w as that social coexistence sh ould have truth a s its goal, that it should not sim ­ ply have a utilitarian purpose. The G reeks regarded a s truth that m ode o f existence an d coexistence that knew n othing o f alteration, change, decay, or death. Moreover, they located truth in the com ­ m on lo g o s/m ode (the given rationality) that always determ in es the form (eidos) or sh ape (morphe) o f every existent thing, as it does also the configuration (the dia-m orphosis) o f their coexistence. T his is the lo g o s/m ode o f the relations that m ake the universe a cosm os, an ornam ent o f harmony, order, and beauty. Such a m ode o f existence according to truth w as w hat the city, or polis, sought to im itate and realize. W ith the sam e sem an tic content (the sam e sem an tic charge o f historical experience), the word ekklesia w as chosen so as to m an i­ fest the identity o f the first Christian com m unities. Ecclesia con­ tinued to signify a collectivity o f people who w ant to live together within the struggle to attain true existence, to m ake existence be­ com e true, as their com m on goal. By their living together they want to realize th at mode that know s no lim itations o f decay and death. If truth for the G reeks w as the (given an d uninterpreted) ra­ tionality o f the relations that constitute the ordered beauty o f the universe, for the C hristians it w as the m ode o f those relations that liberate existence from the n ecessities, lim itations, and predeter­ m inations o f nature or essence. In both th ese version s o f the fact, or event, o f ecclesia (the Greek an d the C hristian), there w as a very clear m etaphysical axis: the reference to an d orientation toward the m ode o f existence according to truth. W hat w as ab sen t w as a reli­ giou s character. The ecclesia o f the G reeks assem b led in the agora, the ecclesia o f the C hristians in private h om es for m eals. The C hristians o f the first ecclesial com m unity in Jerusalem ful­ filled the religious obligation s im posed on them by their Jew ish tra­ dition at the Tem ple o f Solom on — “day by day attending the tem ple together” (Acts 2:46). But they also broke bread in their hom es, devoting them selves to the ap o stle s’ teachin g and fellowship and the prayers (cf. A cts 2:42, 46).

The Ecclesial Event

23

The first C hristians (drawn from the Jew ish people) constituted the ecclesia, or Church, apart from any religious ritu als— outside o f any sacred place (or tem ple). They constituted the ecclesia “in their h o m es” as a supper, a su pper o f thanksgiving. From the first m om ent o f its existence, the C hristian ecclesia w as precisely that: a gath ering for a thanksgiving supper. For the C hristians the historical m odel for a thanksgiving su p ­ per w as the p asch al su pper o f the Jews. O nce a year, at a su pper o f thanksgiving to God, every Jewish fam ily celebrated the Pascha, or Passover, o f the people o f Israel from Egypt and slavery tow ard the “prom ised lan d” an d freedom . In the sam e way, by the su pper o f thanksgiving, the C hristians too celebrated (every week, but also m ore frequently when they could) their own pasch al p assin g over to freedom from the lim itations o f our created hum an nature (from bondage to place, tim e, decay, and death). There w as an obvious difference from the m odel provided by Jew ish tradition; the Church’s su pper referred not to the anam nesis, or “com m em oration,” o f a historical p ast but to the expectation and im aging (in its potential realization here and now) o f an eschatological future: o f a mode by which hum an bein gs could exist in a state o f freedom from their nature, from the predeterm in ation s an d n ecessities th at th is nature im poses. The difference from any other kind o f ban qu et is also clear. The supper that con stituted the Church w as the realization o f a differ­ ent mode o f receiving food. The C hristians took bread an d wine (the basic form s o f food) not sim ply in obedience to the natural need for individual self-preservation but in order to com m une in a real way with life, with existence. They did so in order to com m une not on the level o f an em otion al or psychological sen se o f exalta­ tion but on the level o f the vital function that eatin g and drinking represent. They w anted to transform the necessity o f nature into the freedom o f relation, into love. The “peaceful an d loving” sh aring o f bread an d the drinking o f wine in com m on are a sym bol, a sym bol that refers to a h om o­ geneous com m union o f life, that con stitutes a participation in the struggle o f a com m on mode o f existence. And this mode is the tak­ ing o f food/life an a gift o f m anic love for every hum an bein g—the

24

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

sam e takin g o f food /life con stitutes thanksgiving (eu ch aristia) to the provider o f food an d existence, the author o f the potentiality that life sh ould be sh ared in as love. Thanksgiving is also a living com m union w ith the C ausal Principle o f life. “C h ristian s” w as the nam e given to the d isciples o f Christ (Acts 11:26). Christ (the kechrism enos, the “anointed on e”) w as the so b ri­ qu et o f a historical person, Je su s o f N azareth. The discip les o f Jesu s Christ were th ose who believed (placed their tru st in) his w itness, teaching, an d life. Christ did not bear w itn ess to him self. He u sed to say that it w as his w orks th at bore w itn ess to him .3 He called the w orks that bore w itn ess to him signs, his w orks in dicating who he w as, the identity and truth o f h is existence. He never declared or even hinted that he w as the founder o f a new religion. In his own person he em bodied an d outlined for hum anity a new mode o f existence. The mode o f existence th at Christ em bodied and to which he called hum anity had no elem ents or m arks that were characteris­ tic o f religious dem ands. It did not lead to atom ic convictions; it did not p resu ppo se m eritorious atom ic virtues; it did not lay down prescription s ab ou t observin g the law, ab ou t conform ing to types o f worship. In all th ese fields C hrist’s teachin g overturned an d re­ versed the rules and p resu ppo sitio n s o f religion. In the language o f his place an d tim e, Christ spoke o f the mode o f existence and life “according to truth” as the kingdom o f heaven. A nd he preached th at those who gu ide us toward th is mode are not p io u s religious people, th ose who find satisfaction in being virtu­ ous, th o se who shore up their ego by keepin g som e kind o f law. T h ose who guide u s are people who have lo st all confidence in their own selves, people who expect no person al reward whatsoever, and only thirst to be loved even if they do not deserve it— desp ised sin­ ners: tax collectors, robbers, prostitutes, and prodigals. C hrist declared (and his w orks testified) that the m ode o f true existence and life is love—love not sim ply as a quality o f behavior but a s freedom from the ego, freedom from an individualistic ex­ 3. “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true . . . The very works that I am doing, testify on my behalf” (John 5:31, 36).

The Ecclesial Event

25

istence, freedom from the n ecessities im posed by nature. Love, in the teachin g o f Christ an d the testim ony o f his disciples, d o es not m ean doing good, being affectionate tow ard each other, or show ing altruism . It m ean s existential freedom : the active refusal to identify existence with natural atom ic onticity and with the predeterm in a­ tions, lim itations, and n ecessities that govern it. And th is active refusal is po ssib le when existence is realized as a relation free from the dem an ds o f nature, that is, as self-transcendence, self-offering, and love. From the first m om ents o f its historical existence, the Christian Church has prop osed a single and unique definition o f true ex is­ tence and life, which is also the definition o f the C ausal Principle o f all that exists. W ithin the fram ew ork o f the sem an tic possibilities o f hum an language, possib ilities th at are always relative, it has d e ­ fined God in term s o f love: “God is love” (1 John 4 :8 ). It is not that God has love, that love is a m oral or qualitative attribute o f God; not that God first exists, and b ecau se he exists he m oreover loves. The ph rase “God is love” reveals the mode that m akes God what he is (that m akes him God). The mode, the signifier o f G odhead, is not located by C hristians (as it is by the religions an d ph ilosoph ies) in the attribu tes o f om ­ nipotence, om niscience, unbegottenness, or im m ortality. From the first records o f the C hurch’s w itness, the m ode o f existence th at dif­ ferentiates God from every existent thing is freedom , his absolute existential freedom — not freedom a s an unlim ited power o f choice but prim arily freedom from any existential predeterm ination, lim i­ tation, or necessity. It is to th is freedom that the word love refers—we always u n ­ derstan d love only as deliberate choice, not as necessity. And it is to the sam e ab solu te existential freedom that the linguistic signifiers o f the Church’s w itn ess refer, the signifiers that concern the triad o f hypostases o f the C au seless C ause o f existent things. If there is an elem ent o f “revelation” in the testim ony o f C hrist’s disciples, it lies in three words: the linguistic signifiers Father, Son, and Spirit. T hese reveal "an other" version o f the existential event,

26

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

“an oth er” m ode o f existence an d life from the given m ode o f sen ­ sible reality. In radical con trast to the religious version o f God as “suprem e b ein g” or a s a totality o f “su pern atu ral” (divine) beings, the Church’s experience w itn esses to three self-con scious an d ratio ­ nal {personal) hy postases o f the C ausal Principle o f th at which ex­ ists, h ypostases that confirm existence a s a freedom o f com m union o f existence, th at is, as love. The signifiers Father, Son, an d Spirit do not reveal three in di­ vidual bein gs (specific self-com plete realizations) o f a given com ­ m on nature or essence (an alogous to the natures that we infer as the com m on lo g o s/m ode o f every uniform class o f existen t things). T hese n am es reveal th at the existence (or m ore correctly, the reality beyond existence) o f each hy postasis o f the C au seless C ause o f all thin gs “is realized” as freedom o f loving relation. Each hypostasis exists as self-con scious freedom o f love. Each h ypostasis is love. T h an ks to the nam e Father, we have a linguistic indication o f the subjective identity o f the cau sal h ypostasis o f being. W hat is in ­ dicated is that the cau sal hy postasis o f being “ex ists” in a m anner that do es not bind the hy postasis to the atom ic sen se o f existence (the sen se o f onticity, o f ontic self-com pleteness). The nam e Father reveals that the specific hy postasis that is cau sal o f being is neither known nor exists by itse lf an d for itself. It exists a s the h ypostasis that “generates” the Son and cau ses the “procession ” o f the Spirit. The “generation” o f the Son an d the “procession ” o f the Spirit (nontem porally and lovingly— ou t o f love alone, an d only as a result o f freedom ) is the m ode by which the being o f the Father is hypostasized. He is a h ypostasis (a real existence) because he rejects atom ic, ontic self-com pleteness and freely realizes being as relation, as love. W hat the Father is is not revealed as Godhead (which w ould have im plied being boun d to the existential predeterm ination o f a given “divine” nature). It is revealed by h is fath erh o od: his n on pre­ determ ined and uncircum scribed freedom to exist— a freedom that is confirm ed (that becom es an existen tial fact) with the “genera­ tion ” o f the Son an d the “procession ” o f the Spirit. T han ks to the nam e Father, freedom is signified not as so m e­ thin g sim ply to do with the will (the power o f m aking unrestricted

The Ecclesial Event

27

choices) but as the cau se o f being, o f the hypostasization o f being, o f being bein g con stituted as hypostatic reality. W ith regard to its causal principle, existence is neither obligatory nor an autom atic given but is identified with the h ypostatic self-determ in ation o f the C ause o f all th in gs as Father, that is, a s love. He who con stitutes the cau se o f existence exists not because he is God but b ecau se he wills to be the Father, the hypostatic freedom o f loving self-transcen­ dence an d self-offering. The sam e ab so lu te existential freedom is also revealed linguistically by the nam e Son. By sonship is signified a h ypostasis o f being that is not predeterm ined existentially by its “natu re” or “essen ce” but is self-determ ined as freedom o f relation with the Father. The rela­ tion is loving: a free response to the love o f the Father, a love that is constitutive o f the existential event, an d it is th is th at “gen erates” a hypostasis o f personal self-con sciousn ess, o f rational otherness. The h ypostasis is signified by the nam e Son precisely in order that relation sh ould be m anifested rather than nature, a free will for ex­ istence, not a predeterm in ation or necessity. The nam e Son reveals th at the specific hy p ostasis o f the Son is neither known nor exists by itse lf or for itself. He w ills to exist because he loves the Father. H is existence is a hypostatic response to the Father’s loving will. A s an existential event he refers to the Father; he “w itn esses to the Father,” not to him self. W hat the Son is is signified by the voluntary sonship, not by the essential (belonging to the essence and thus n ecessary) Godhead. He is God b ecau se he exists as Son o f the Father. H is existence is not prior to his sonsh ip; it is not bound existentially to predeter­ m inations o f atom ic (ontic) self-com pletion. He hypostasizes the freedom o f loving self-transcendence and self-offering. The sam e is true for the word Spirit. It reveals the hypostatic other­ ness o f personal self-con sciou sn ess, which is neither known nor exists as ontic atom icity but refers as existence to the love o f the Father, to the ontopoeic and life-giving truth. He is signified a s the Spirit o f the Father as the counterpart by linguistic logic o f the Son/ L ogos o f the Father: the Son Is "generated” (or “begotten”) by the

28

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

Father an d through his existence m an ifests the Father, w itn esses to him , as the love that is foundation al o f being. T he Spirit “proceeds” from the Father an d m an ifests through his existence the “property” (the idion, the existen tial identity) o f the C au seless C ause o f be­ ing: the ek-static character (the creative, life-bearing, an d w isdom bestow ing character) o f the Father’s love. T he ab solu te accuracy o f the signifiers that the Church’s m eta­ physical testim ony em ployed before the advent o f any dem an ds for ph ilosophical analysis or the developm ent o f any system atic on tological fram ew ork is truly astonish in g. I am referring to the descriptive accuracy o f freedom as the cau sal principle o f the ex­ istential event— a p erso n al freedom that is not subordin ate to the n ecessities im posed (predeterm ined) by essen ce or nature. I m ean also the use o f signifiers referring to a Triad th at is causative o f being, a Triad o f hypostatic differentiation with a sin gle existential identity (with a com m on m ode o f existence): love. From the Church’s first appearan ce (at a tim e w hen p h ilo sop h ­ ical influences an d the d em an d s o f sy stem atic th ough t had not yet em erged), the w ords Father, Son, an d Spirit m ark a radical b o u n d ­ ary dividing C hristian m etaph ysics from G reek on tology (which then predom in ated in the cultural p arad ig m )—an d not only from Greek on tology b u t also from all later p h ilosop h ical m eta­ physics up to the presen t day. T h is is truly asto n ish in g b ecau se the environm ent (both historical an d geograp h ical) w as m an i­ festly trap p ed in the logic and lan gu age o f the th eology o f atom ic on ticities, o f essen tialist m etaph ysics, o f a religiosity b ased on n aturalism . The aston ish m en t that the C au seless C ause o f being should be a perso n al h ypostasis (a hy postasis th at is self-conscious, selfwilling, and self-activating)—a freedom th at tran scen ds any d e ­ lim iting autonom y— has lasted for twenty centuries. So too h as the aston ish m en t that this transcendence sh ould be signified a s “the reality o f love” (as ontos erds), a Triadic realization o f being in lov­ ing com m union and an existential m utual indw elling o f personal

The Ecclesial Event

29

2.2. H istorical Realism The herm eneutic proposal for interpreting the really existent that w as conveyed by the Church’s w itn ess did not have the character o f a ph ilosophical innovation, o f a theoretical discovery. It w as a te s­ timony, or record, o f a specific historical experience (and on e that w as sh ared): the historical appearance o f Je su s o f N azareth. This a l­ lowed the first C hristians to assert that they did not preach “cleverly devised m yths” (2 Pet 1:16) but facts su pported by evidence— that “which we have heard, which we have seen with o u r eyes, which we have looked u pon an d touched with our h an ds . . . we testify to it and proclaim to you” (1 John 1:1-2). The bearers o f th is testim ony had seen and touched a hum an existence the sam e a s all the oth ers— a natural individual in a sp e ­ cific historical tim e and social sp ace— som e o f w hose works, how­ ever, had the character o f particular sign s: they signified the power to transcen d the existential b ou n daries o f hum an nature, to over­ com e the predeterm inations, lim itations, necessities, and b on ds that govern every hum an existence. W ithout any display or deliber­ ate dissem in ation (on the contrary, often with in sisten t ap p eals not to publicize the sign s), it becam e evident that this person, Jesu s the Christ, although in every respect like all the others, w as h im self able to be free (and could m ake som e o f his fellow h um an s free) from su bjection to natural n ecessities, to natural laws. Stories o f “wonder-w orking” m en or “go d s” who appear in hum an form and intervene in hum an affairs are very frequent in m any re­ ligious traditions. W hat is different in the Church’s w itn ess is the refusal to take C hrist’s sig n s a s “w onders,” or to use them as such. That is, the option that the sig n s should be taken a s proofs, or should function a s such, so a s to render su bm ission to the “au th o r­ ity” o f Christ, his disciples, or his teachin g free from any grounds for refusal (i.e., obligatorily, unfreely) is firmly rejected.4 In the C hurch’s experien ce the sig n s perform ed by C hrist (in ­ d icatio n s o f the ab ro g atio n o f the lim itatio n s an d n ecessities o f

h ypostases. 4. See the temptation of Christ, Matt 4:1-11.

BO

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

h u m an n atu re) do n ot p o in t to an u n explain able ( su p ern atu ral ) existen tial p o ssib ility b elo n gin g to a specific individual. They re ­ veal a m ode o f existence th at is realized by a n atu ral h u m an in d i­ vidu al (h um an in every respect) an d th at therefore is conceivably attain ab le (potentially— n ot w ith ou t p resu p p o sitio n s) by every h u m an being. The transfer o f w hat is signified from the exclusivity o f the in di­ vidual to a potentiality for all is not arbitrary, nor d o es it constitute an interpretation b ased on ideology. H istorical realism is claim ed not only by the testim on y to the sign s (which w as not dispu ted by contem poraries) b u t also by the affirm ation o f eyew itnesses that Christ deliberately refused to m ake his sig n s or w orks depend on his individual capacity or h is existential identity.5 T his deliberate detach m en t o f the m iraculous works from the one who perform ed th em — for which the testim ony is em ph atic— th is voluntary relin­ qu ish m ent o f any individual perso n al goal, even o f any claim to ex­ istential autonom y, reveals n othing less than a new (revelatory for the facts o f hum an existence), universally prop osed mode o f exis­ tence, w hose results are the signs. W hat is th is mode o f existence th at Christ teach es through his ac­ tion s and that frees hum anity from the existential predeterm in a­ tions, lim itations, and n ecessities o f its nature? It is th at which we have already analyzed in our study o f the linguistic signifier Son in the w ritten testim on y o f the first ecclesial com m unity. Indeed, if the w ords Father, Son, and Spirit indicate the mode o f that which truly exists, the freedom o f love as the enhypo stasized Triadic Causal Principle o f being, this sem antic system sim ply rem ains a ph ilosophical notion (a striking one, perhaps, but unrelated to hum anity) if the testim on y o f the eyew itness to C hrist’s presence am on g them is ignored. The w ritten testim ony o f the d isciples asserts th at with regard to him self, as a declaration o f his identity, C hrist u sed the design a­ tion Son o f the Father. He d o es not refer his works, which func­ tion ed as signs, to him self; he d o es not regard them as his own. 5. Cf. John 14:12: “The one who believes in me will also do the works that 1 do and, in fact, will do greater works than these.”

The Ecclesial Event

31

They are “works o f my Father,” which he has undertaken sim ply in order to “accom plish” them , “works o f him who sent m e.”6 Ev­ ery action o f Christ, everything he carried out, m an ifests a draw ing back from atom ic existential self-com pleteness; every action refers to the will o f the Father’s love.7 And in one o f the texts o f the writ­ ten testim ony o f the disciples (in John’s G ospel), the expressions used for the existential relationship betw een Je su s Christ an d his Father have an u ndisguised on tological content; they reveal a m ode o f existence.8 The proclam ation o f this m ode o f existence that C hrist em b od­ ied and to which every hum an being is called is the Church’s gospel, or good news: the m essage o f the existential freedom that the eccle­ sial event sets as its goal. The Church’s gospel is sum m arized in the preaching o f love. But for the Church love is not an atom ic virtue, a quality o f the behavior o f the individual— it is not sim ply m utual friendship, com passion, altruism , affection. Before anything else it is a denial o f egotistic priorities, a renunciation o f self-interest. It is the struggle o f hum an bein gs to free them selves from subjection to the dem an ds o f their atom ic nature, to draw existence from the freedom o f relation an d not from the n ecessities o f nature, to exist by loving and becau se they love. Love is the realization o f the m ode o f existence that is “according to truth,” the im aging o f the Triadic m odel o f real existence and life. In the historical person o f Christ, the Church touches the mode o f the freedom o f existence from the predeterm in ation s and n eces­ sities o f nature or essence. If the Son o f the Father is a h ypostasis o f freedom from any predeterm in ation and necessity o f “G odh ead” (divine nature or essence), this either rem ains an abstract ph ilo­ 6. John 10:37; 14:10; 9:4. 7. Cf. John 5:30: “I seek to do not my own will but the will o f him who sent me ; John 4:34: “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work." 8. John 14:10: “I am in the Father and the Father is in m e”; 14:7: “If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him ; 17:21-22: That they may all [all those who have believed in me through the word] be one. A« you, Father, are in me and I am in you . . . so that they may be one as we are one,"

32

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

The Ecclesial Event

33

sophical notion or is encountered historically in his incarnation. Only the incarnation, in a specific historical tim e an d social space, affirm s the freedom o f the Son o f the Father to realize existence both in accordance w ith the term s o f divine existence and in accor­ dance with the term s o f hum an existence, w ithout bein g su bject at any tim e to any natural necessity whatsoever. For that reason, w ith­ out the encounter w ith the historical person o f Je su s Christ there is

tation o f hum an nature. A nd in his historical existence C hrist a s ­ su m es this irrationality, he dies, in order to signify that even death m ay be experienced as freedom o f relationship with the Father, that is, as life w ithout lim itation. He assu m es hum an nature “unto death, even death on a cro ss” (Phil 2:8), one o f the m ost horrific form s o f execution. And he d o es it so that th is m ost horrific death should becom e a salvific sign.

no gospel o f existential freedom either. But the incarnation too w ould have also rem ained a bare p h ilo­ sophical notion if the historical person o f Jesu s C hrist had su b m it­ ted in a final and definitive way to the im placable necessity o f the death th at holds sway over hum an nature. The gospel o f existen ­ tial freedom and the foundation o f the ecclesial event is C hrist’s resurrection from the dead, the historical encounter with the risen Christ, the victor over death. If C hrist’s resurrection w as not a h is­ torical event, then C hristianism (the C hristian faith) rem ains yet an other im aginary “-ism,” a m an ifestation (perh aps the m ost fully

An individual hum an bein g is able to exist w ithout the exis­ tential lim itations o f hum an nature: this is w hat is signified by the sign s o f the resurrection in the person o f Christ. T hanks to the leap o f relation (which is realized through n ature’s en ergies/cap acities beyond the n ecessities o f nature), nature’s h ypostasis “draw s exis­ tence” not from nature but from the relation. It is then that the nat­ ural necessity o f death is also ab rogated — the linguistic signifiers o f the sta sis9 or readin ess that ab olish es this necessity are preserved in the ph rase used by C hrist with regard to the Father, as w itnessed by his disciples: “Not w hat I w ant but w hat you w ant” (M att 26:39).

developed one) o f hum an ity’s natural need for religion. N or is C hrist’s resurrection from the dead pu t forward by the Church a s a “w onder” (the high est or suprem e w onder)—the inex­ plicable “su pern atu ral” fact o f the revival o f a corpse. The testim o ­ nies o f C hrist’s d isciples affirm the resurrection too a s a sign, a sign o f sonship: the m an ifestation o f the hypostatic identity o f the Son/ L ogos o f the Father. The resurrection signifies the Son’s freedom to exist both in ac ­ cordance with the term s (in our relative hum an language) o f “di­ vine” nature and in accordance with the term s o f hum an nature. He is free from the existential prescription s (lim itation s and n eces­ sities) o f any nature w hatsoever: he is su b ject neither to the o b liga­ tory eternity o f God nor to the in escapab le death o f M an. He draw s his existence and h ypostasis only from the freedom o f his relation with the Father, not from any given nature. C hrist’s resurrection as a “w onder” w ould have pointed to a new religion; resurrection a s a sign poin ts to a new mode o f existence. It is th is mode that the ecclesial social event w ishes to realize. D eath is the m ost burdensom e and unbearably irrational existential lim i­

The will o f the Father’s love is that M an should be saved: that he should becom e “w hole”10 (integral), that he should be restored to the fullness o f his existential possibilities. A nd if the fullness o f existential p ossib ilities is love as a trium ph o f freedom , then M an’s “salvation” can only be a free choice. Even dissem in ation o f the know ledge o f the p o ssib ilities o f salvation can only be m ade through sig n s that hint at it— not through any kind o f p ersu asion that would violate freedom o f choice. In the incarnation o f the Son, in the death an d resurrection o f Christ, the will o f the Father’s love is hinted at by the sign s (the w ords and d eed s) o f his incarnate Word. In th ese sig n s (which are su ppo rted and certified by a coher­ ent historical realism ), the Church detects the possibility that death should be conquered. A nd it com m unicates th is p o ssib il­ ity, again with the experiential signifiers that point to w hat it has 9. [In Greek stasis (“standing”) is the root o f the word for “resurrection,” anastasis, literally a "standing again.” - trans.] 10. [The word whole (ados) is closely related etymologically to the verb to save (s6z6). - trans,]

34

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

detected. It proclaim s that the natural necessity o f death is a b ro ­ gated when M an freely, not sim ply by m aking choices but by practi­ cal self-denying asceticism , liberates his “gn om ic” will, th at is, w hen he m akes it independent o f the ego’s im peratives, the individualis­ tic dem an ds and n ecessities o f self-preservation, sovereignty, and pleasure, which m ake up the urge for existential self-con tainedness th at is a natural given. The Church proclaim s that such a detach m ent from the ego cann ot be an achievem ent o f the ego itself. It is only won through the struggle o f a sh ared self-denial, the struggle o f entering into relations o f com m union in life: it is an attain m en t o f love. The love that frees u s from death is signified a s an existential reflection o f C hrist’s obedience to the will o f the Father: an obedience that is conceived as the exact op posite to a disciplin ed conform ity to legal requirem ents, as a m an ifestation o f “erotic passion ,” a m ode o f ex­

The Ecclesial Event

35

know ledge derives from the experience o f relations o f person al im ­ mediacy. The tran sm ission o f th is know ledge to succeedin g generations also presu p p o ses an experience o f relation— the Church’s gospel does not function as the com m unication o f inform ation. The re­ lation that conveys know ledge as experience is no longer that o f personal historical testim ony, o f actually having m et the historical person o f Christ. It is a relation o f tru st (faith) in those who once were eyew itnesses to his presence, in the p erso n s who from genera­ tion to generation, in an unbroken chain o f the sam e experiential participation, transm it the testim ony o f their encounter with the go sp el’s signs.

2.3. Relativity o f Language and Priority o f Experience

N othing in the ecclesial event fun ctions as an “objective” fact o f know ledge, a s a parcel o f inform ation that is p assed from one individual to another. There is no “revelation” that ad d s knowl­ edge ab ou t the transcendent, no inform ation that reinforces the epistem ic self-sufficiency o f the individual, the instinctive quest for m etaphysical certainties. The Church’s gospel com m unicates a mode o f relation an d is shared in only a s an experience o f relation. It is like the relation betw een two people, one who loves, pourin g out his joy at his discovery o f faith /tru st, and an other who responds by sim ilarly loving in order to share in th is experiential discovery. F aith /trust is a con stan t struggle to m aintain a relation, and the know ledge that faith conveys is the coherent articulation o f that struggle. The struggle signifies an attem pt to attain som ethin g w ithout the certainty that one has attained it— however long the struggle lasts, n othing is sure or safe, nothing m ay be taken as given. The relation o f love is gained or lo st from m om ent to m o ­ m ent. At any given m om ent self-com pleteness threaten s to nullify the relation— the natural urge o f self-preservation and o f the ex­ ercise o f dom inion lies in wait for us. T his urge seeks to m ake the knowledge conveyed by the relation subject to the arm orin g o f the individual with certainties.

The ecclesial event is founded on a coherent historical realism , on the experience o f encountering the historical person o f C hrist and his works or signs. The gospel that he conveys is knowledge, and

T hat is why the ecclesial event d o es not convey objective “tru th s” capab le o f co n stitu tin g the “con viction s” o f individuals. It do es not presuppose “do gm as,” axiom atic statem en ts, obligatory "principles," as the religions do. T he only “objective” inform ation

istence that generates love. The Church’s reference to a Triadic C ausal Principle o f that which exists (Father, Son, Spirit) has the experience an d testim ony o f the advent o f Christ a s a startin g point, rooted in historical real­ ism . A nd the end or goal o f th is etiological reference, rooted in an equally coherent realism , is freedom from the contingencies and n ecessities o f an individualistic self-containedness. That which is individualistic, egocentric, an d self-contained is for the Church a m ode o f survival for natural m ortal onticity— it is sin (h am artia, an existential failure to hit the m ark) an d death. T hat which is self-transcendence, self-denial, a voluntary lettin g go o f the ego, love, and eros is life, a trium ph o f life over death. “A s for knowledge, it will p ass away; a s for ton gues, they will cease; as for prophecies, they will p ass away; love never en d s” (cf. 1 Cor 13:8).

36

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

The Ecclesial Event

37

com patible with the ecclesial event is the in vitation “C om e and se e ” (Joh n 1:46), th at is, a call for hum an b ein gs to particip ate in specific relations, relatio n s o f com m u nion w ith life, in a com m on stru ggle for each p erso n ’s individual self-tran scen den ce an d selfoffering. A nd the go al is the know ledge th at com es ab o u t w hen a

Church fa ith (p istis) recovers its original m eaning: it is the attain ­ ment o f tru st (in Greek, literally “enfaithm ent,” em pistosyne), the freedom o f self-transcendence— a dynam ic realization o f relation, with know ledge as its experiential product.

p erso n loves.

[Individual self-transcendence, or freedom from the ego, does not abolish the hypostatic reality and active oth ern ess o f the rational subject, which is always one o f the term s or factors o f a relation. An event o f relation is not con stituted w ithout real actors, selfcon scious term s/factors o f the event. Only irrational existences or ob jects are sim ply correlated, linked, or associated, losin g their in­ dividual identity in the resultant m ass.

“This is the ignorance that transcen ds knowledge.”11 Is the phrase m erely wordplay? Clearly not. It refers to the form and m ode o f know ledge that is acquired by those who have experience o f the ecclesial event. “Ignorance" here (often translated as "unknow ­ in g”) signifies an attainm ent, the voluntary renunciation o f the con structed “know ledge” o f psychological certainties. It signifies a strippin g away o f the in stinctual (biological) need for m etaphysical certainty, for the arm orin g o f the ego with “infallible” convictions. This ignorance is an epistem ic realism . It is a clean sin g from illusions, an attitude incom patible with the inferences o f hypo­ thetical syllogism s, w ith m ental idols, with wishful thinking. It is a realistic aw areness o f our difficulty in acquiring knowledge o f what is m eta-physical, w hat lies beyond nature, by the m ean s (the cogni­ tive capacities) that nature provides. Intellection, judgm ent, im agi­ nation, intuition, m ystical “in sight”— none o f th ese suffices. Such a renunciation o f any atom ic (natural) epistem ic p o ssib il­ ity is experienced as a m ind-reeling void, a s total despair. It never­ th eless proves to be a presu pposition if we are to free ourselves from our ego, our nature, and give ourselves up w ithout any reservation to the relation o f love, to faith /tru st. A nd it is this self-surrender th at renders the fruit o f a know ledge tran scen din g any “objective” localized inform ation. W ithin the ecclesial event know ledge is a fruit o f relation, a con sequen ce o f faith /tru st. It h as the realism o f experiential im ­ mediacy, a s do es every attainm ent o f relation. In a religion “faith” m ay m ean the blind acceptance o f principles, doctrines, axiom atic statem en ts, the castration o f thought an d judgm ent. But in the 11. Isaac the Syrian, Discourse 32, in The Ascetic Writings o f Our Holy Fa­ ther Isaac the Syrian, ed. Nikephoros Theotokis (Leipzig, 1770), re-edited by Joachim Spetieris (Athens, 1895), 140.

Freedom from individualism (which is the foundation o f the ecclesial event: faith as a product o f knowledge) is freedom from subjection to the im personal n ecessities o f nature, not a denial or blunting o f subjective identity and self-con sciousn ess. C on se­ quently, it is from w ithin atom ic self-transcendence, self-offering, freedom from the ego, that the existential oth erness o f the su b ­ ject— his unique, dissim ilar, an d u nrepeatable identity— is m ost o f all realized and m anifested. Subjection to the n ecessities that govern the natural individual, the psychological ego, signifies conform ing to the undifferentiating law o f nature (the law that m akes all the individuals o f a species identical with each other). By contrast, the m ore stead fast a person is in the struggle for individual self-transcendence and self-offer­ ing, in the struggle to attain a relationship o f love, the m ore evident is the existential realization an d m anifestation o f his subjective identity a s active otherness, a s u nrepeatable uniqueness. In the Greek language we distin guish the concept o f the indi­ vidual (atom on ) from that o f the person (prosopon ). By the word atom on we m ean the undifferentiated unit o f a uniform whole that can only be distinguished numerically. By the word prosopon we m ean the self-con scious active (creative) oth erness that can only be realized and known in the im m ediacy o f relation.] Even if the know ledge that is gained through relations o f experi­ ential im m ediacy is ultim ately never subject to the objectivity o f

38

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

language, it is nevertheless n ot incom m unicable. It is signified by linguistic signifiers, as is any em pirical know ledge (as poetry, for exam ple, also expresses realistic experience through w ords or b e ­ yond w ords). Like every sign-system , or sem an tics, o f em pirical know ledge, the language o f ecclesial com m union m erely signifies em pirical knowledge. It refers to it; it do es not replace it. T he u n ­ derstan din g o f the signifiers d o es not also entail know ledge o f what is signified. Before it becam e su b ject to the corruption s o f religionization, the ecclesial event w as expressed historically in a language th at w as absolutely con sisten t with the epistem ological principle o f apoph aticism (a vital elem ent o f the identity o f the Greek p h ilosop h i­ cal tradition, o f w hat w as once the totality o f the Greek paradigm ). We call apophaticism the denial th at we can exh au st know ledge in its form ulation. The form ulation o f a truth (o f an em pirical attesta­ tion) an d the und erstan din g o f the form ulation do not replace the know ledge o f the tru th /attestatio n . I m ay u n derstan d a form ula­ tion (linguistic, visual, or any other) b u t be ignorant o f the truth (reality) to which the form ulation refers. Knowledge o f any truth is not the un d erstan din g o f the signifiers th at specify it. W hat con sti­ tu tes such know ledge is the im m ediacy o f the relation (or experi­ ence o f the relation) with the signified reality or w ith the testim ony o f the experience th at confirm s it. For som eon e who participates in the ecclesial event, there are no a priori tru th s or intellectually obligatory beliefs. There are no p resu pposition al prin ciples (likew ise im posed intellectually), no codified m eth ods o f interpretation, no legally prescribed stip u la­ tion s o f behavior. Every liturgical an d declarative (kerygm atic) m an ifestation o f the ecclesial event refers to the experiential im ­ m ediacy o f relations o f com m union. It testifies to the experience o f relations o f com m union an d confirm s them . It su m m on s to the ex­ perience o f participation in the relations o f ecclesial com m union. A characteristic indication o f the realism o f the above statem en ts m ay be seen in the follow ing historical datum . T he sym ptom s o f the corruption o f the tru th /reality o f the C hurch (sym ptom s o f the religionization o f the ecclesial event)

The Ecclesial Event

39

are countered, at least in the first eight centuries, by in stitu tio n s th at en su red (as a prim ary criterion for distin gu ish in g au th en tic­ ity from alien ation ) the w itn ess o f the experience o f the ecclesial body. T hese in stitu tio n s were the office o f the bishop and the conciliar system . The incidence o f any corruption o f the ecclesial event w as ex­ pressed by a council o f bish ops. Each bish op brought to the coun­ cil not his personal opinion an d view point but the experience o f the local church at w hose eucharistic assem bly he presid ed an d for each o f w hose m em bers who sh ared in the life o f the body he w as the father and generator. T hus a council o f b ish ops su m m arized the ecclesial experience o f the whole (katholou) body (the catholic, total, and unified body) o f the local eucharistic com m unities w hose presid in g bish ops con­ stituted the council. T his sum m ary o f the com m on experience o f all w as som eth in g radically different both from the hom ogndm ia, or being o f one m ind, o f the an cient G reeks and from the m uch later (indeed form ulated only in the m odern period) principle o f the m a­ jority vote. A council o f bish ops did not function by the expressions o f opinions, so that those which were approved by the m ajority would be regarded (by convention) as m ore correct, w hereas the m inority (by the sam e convention) had to conform to the opinion o f the majority. There could be disagreem en ts and differences in the form ula­ tion o f the com m on experience. But if the different form ulation also pointed to a different experience, an experience th at did not coincide with or w as in com patible with that which w as shared uni­ versally, then the possib ility th at the difference could be regarded as com patible w as ipso fa c to excluded. It w as not excluded becau se o f a clash o f fanatical “con viction s” but becau se experiences that were different also con stituted relations o f sh aring in the experi­ ence that were different. It is often said, a s an ab stract historical inference, that in the early centuries o f the Church’s life the ju dge o f w hether the d eci­ sio n s o f a council could operate or not w as the ecclesial body as a whole. Yes, but again not a s an arithm etical w hole or as a vot­ ing majority. The wholeness o f the body, the m anifestation o f the

40

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

catholic Church, w as (and always is) an event o f the preservation o f the whole (katholou) truth/reality o f the ecclesial gospel a s a visible and living eucharistic com m unity, w ithout any kind o f stab le and perm an ent local center. It so m etim es occurred that a bish op offered a testim ony at a council that w as in com patible with the experience o f his local church. As a result, w hen the bishop returned to his see, the po pu ­ lace dem onstrated again st him and had him deposed. Som etim es, however, the op posite happened. A bishop m ight express so m e­ thin g new at the council an d the popu lace su bsequ en tly m ight d is­ cover in the b ish op’s innovation a fuller insight into their experien­ tial goals. In the life o f the Church, no representative figure or in stitu ­ tion w as ever the bearer o f "infallibility : neither the bishop, nor the populace as an arithm etical /quantitative factor, nor an ecu m en i­ cal council— nor, o f course, any particular local church. Nowhere could the urge for the natural individual to find security for h im self latch on to an objective “authority”; from nowhere could the indi­ vidual draw “objective” certainties for the defensive arm orin g o f his psychological self. T he truth and authenticity o f the ecclesial event w as an d al­ ways is a com m on quest, never a fixed p o ssessio n — it is a dynam ic, active “Com e and see” that cannot be pinned down to specific in­ stitutions, a “perfection beyond perfection,” a “com pletion beyond com pletion.”12 Even the decision s o f the ecum enical councils do not transcribe ecclesial truth as codified (ideological) coordinates. They sim ply define (in the etym ological sen se o f settin g protective sem an tic b ou n daries to) the em pirical qu est (in the common stru g ­ gle) o f the eucharistic com m unity. They are indicative p resu p p o si­ tion s for participation in the ecclesial event, a participation th at is

The Ecclesial Event

41

with all the natural capacities for relation th at we have at ou r d is­ p o sal (thought, judgm ent, rational control, critical testin g)— c a­ p acities for transcending the tem ptation s o f convenience, o f blind su b m ission to an individualistic assurance, in order to avoid the risks o f responsibility. The faithful Christian places tru st in the know ledge conveyed by relationship with and participation in the eucharistic com m u­ nity, but th is relationship is a struggle for self-transcendence, and the struggle will be accom plished through the deliberate activation o f the capacities o f n atu re— not through the m echanistic interven­ tion o f “su pern atu ral” (m agical) grace, a s is dem an ded by the ob jec­ tive logic o f religion. The faithful C hristian realizes the relationship by activatin g the capacities o f n ature in order to transcend the n e­ cessities o f n atu re— in order that his existential hypostasis should draw its existence not from a n ature that is su b ject to n ecessities but from the freedom o f relation according to the m odel o f Christ. T hus the “com m on struggle” th at con stitutes the ecclesial event, the authenticity (not the alienation) o f the struggle, is de­ fin ed (orizetai) w ithout bein g determined definitively (kathorizetai). It is defined by the d ecision s o f the councils, by the w ritings o f the Fathers/teachers o f the ecclesial body, by the language o f liturgical dram a and works o f art, w ithout the definition exhau st­ ing the event itse lf o f ecclesial truth and authenticity. The visible sign o f the specific location o f the ecclesial event is the cup o f the Eucharist. A nd the visible criterion o f ecclesial truth/authenticity is participation in the com m on cup, which presu p p o ses rem aining within the boun daries/defin ition s o f the decision s o f the councils.

2.4. Authority as Service

visibly crowned in the com m on cup o f the Eucharist. A m em ber o f the body o f the Church for the m ost part believes/ tru sts and to a lesser extent, if at all, finds assuran ce through pin­ poin tin g the truth o f the Church. T his relation o f tru st is pursued 12. Luke 17:20: “The kingdom o f God is not coming with things that can be observed.”

T he ecclesial event is form ed as a com m union o f person s, an active voluntary collectivity with a specific objective. For an active collec­ tivity to be form ed with a specific objective, a functional intercon­ nection is required, som e organ izin g stru ctu re— a differentiation o f ways o f con trib u tin g to the dynam ic coh esion o f the whole. D if­ ferentiated ways o f con trib u tin g entail a distinction and ranking

42

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

o f responsibilities, a hierarchical grad in g o f pow ers, obligations, an d com petencies. T h u s form s o f exercising authority arise. T his is an unavoidable p resu p p o sitio n if a collectivity is to be functional an d effective. The (alm ost self-evident) objective for form ing a collectivity is the serving o f com m on n eed s— the “sh aring o f needs. In the case o f the ecclesial body, the need that is shared is not one o f general usefulness. It does not concern m atters o f practical utility to h u ­ m an life, or psychological benefits, or even the satisfaction o f the instinctive need to form a group for protection an d security. The com m on need in the ecclesial body is that an existential goal should be pursued, a specific mode o f existence. This pu rsu it form s a “com m on struggle,” and the com m on struggle p resu p p o ses the functional cohesiveness o f the collectivity, an ordered ranking o f the participan ts in the struggle. Som e lead, and oth ers are led; som e plan, and oth ers are recipien ts o f the plans; som e purify and “enlighten,” oth ers are “purified” and “en lighten ed.’ The goal for which the ecclesial body has been form ed is com ­ m on for all, the difference o f functions serving the com m on pursuit o f the sam e goal. The goal (described schem atically) is that hum an bein gs should draw existence not from their existentially finite na­ ture but from their existentially unlim ited relation. It is that the collectivity should aim at love as the mode o f existence, according to the m odel o f the Triadic h ypostases o f the C au seless C ause o f that which exists. It is th at existence should be shared in as loving self­

The Ecclesial Event

43

purify and “enlighten” because they have actively renounced any pursuit o f any atom ic purity and enlightenm ent attained by their own efforts. O thers are “purified” and “enlightened” to the degree in which they com m it them selves to an active self-renunciation. In the first w ritten expression o f the Church’s experience, we encounter the clearest denial and rejection o f the criteria o f the way in which power is exercised, the criteria that are applicable, a s a rule, in any collectivity. We read, “You know that those who are su ppo sed to rule over the G entiles lord it over them , and their great m en exercise authority over them . But it shall not be so am ong you; but whoever would be great am o n g you m ust be your servant, and whoever would be first am o n g you m u st be slave o f all” (M ark 1 0:42-4 4 ) . . . Rather let the greatest am o n g you becom e as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves” (Luke 2 2 :2 5 -2 6 ). In the above p a ssa g e why is the a ssu m p tio n th at authority, a l­ ways an d everyw here, is exercised tyran nically regard ed a s selfev id en t? O bviou sly b ecau se com m on experien ce con firm s it. Every form o f au th o rity h as its cau sal prin cip le in the n eed for so ciety in its collective a sp e c t to fu n ction properly an d be able to m ake effective d ecisio n s. Accordingly, every exercise o f au th o r­ ity h as in the first place the ch aracter o f an office; it is resp ected by everybody a s a m inistry, an d w hoever is in a p o sitio n o f a u ­ thority serves the com m on good , th e n eed s o f h is or her fellow h u m an bein gs. C om m on experien ce, however, con firm s so m e ­ thin g qu ite differen t: the exercise o f au th o rity m an ifests ch arac­ teristic s d iam etrically o p p o sed to th o se we su p p o se to b elo n g to its origin al p u rp ose.

transcendence and self-offering. T h u s w ithin the Church the differentiated m od es o f con tribut­ ing to the “com m on struggle” (the d istin guish in g and ranking o f responsibilities, the placing on a hierarchical scale o f capacities, obligations, com petencies) function not in term s o f the preem i­ nence and power o f som e who are “su perio rs over oth ers who are “inferiors" (as always h appen s where authority is exercised). T he h i­ erarchical distinction s operate only as functional variation s o f the sam e struggle for self-transcendence and self-offering. Som e are leaders an d gu id es b ecau se they love in a kenotic, or

perpetuation o f the species, som e instinctive dem and so essential for the operation o f the law o f nature that the fulfillm ent and real­ ization o f this dem and are accom pan ied by an overw helm ing ab u n ­ dance o f psychosom atic pleasure and enjoym ent.

self-em ptying, fashion, and oth ers are led and guided becau se they en tru st them selves in a kenotic, or self-em ptying, fashion. Som e

Clinical psychology allow s us to recognize in the need for power (a need that can even becom e a m ania) a typical m anifestation o f

The exercise o f authority brings very great pleasu re to people; it is a pleasure perh aps greater than any other. T his m ean s that it satisfies som e biological need that is m ore im portant even than the

44

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

the urge to dom inate. W hat is expressed m ost o f all in th is urge is the biological need for the individual to respond to the dem an ds o f n atural selection, the function th at assu res extended survival and genetic reproduction to the m ore resistan t or powerful individuals, those at any rate th at are m ore suited to serving the dynam ic o f the evolution o f each sp ecies (in con trast to th o se individuals th at are w eaker in various ways and m ore easily captured). The urge to dom inate has ram ifications form ing a com plex o f n eeds th at fulfill the ego’s d em an ds for pleasure. T his com plex may be sum m arized by giving a representative list o f signifiers: n arcis­ sism (a m irror-like relationship with a con structed im age o f the self), an inflated superego, an overcom pensated sen se o f inferior­ ity, psychologically driven ph ob ias and insecurities, and uncon ­ scious n eeds for sad istic satisfaction (the pleasure elicited by the hum iliation or suffering o f an other person). W ith th ese as given, one could conclude that the phenom enon o f the exercise o f power, a s a quality o f one’s existential mode, is precisely at the op posite pole to the ecclesial mode. T h at is why the ecclesiastical hierarchy o f functions, the different m od es o f con­ tribution to the form ation an d active coh esion o f the eucharistic body, m anifestly p resu ppo se the reversal o f the term s under which power is usually exercised—a genuine overturning o f them . W ithout an overturning o f the term s o f th e pow er phenom enon, there is no ecclesial event, ju st a s there is no ecclesial event w ith­ ou t the eucharistic m eal. The com parison is bold b u t not arbitrary. It arises from the sam e “lo gic” th at governs ecclesial w itn ess as a whole. The eucharistic m eal dynam ically realizes an d foreshadow s the reversal o f the stipu latio n s o f the natural need to receive nourish­ m ent: the bread and the w ine in the Eucharist are shared in, not con sum ed individualistically, and the eatin g and drinking serve re­ lation, not nature; life, not survival. Sh aring in the bread and wine o f the Eucharist refers to the transform ation not o f m orals or o f con duct but o f mode o f existence. T hat is why the Eucharist is the sign th at reveals the Church’s identity, the event that realizes and m an ifests the Church.

The Ecclesial Event

45

The sam e ch aracteristics m ay be attribu ted to the hierarchical ordering o f the C hurch’s m inistries. The offices o f deacon, p re s­ byter, an d bish op; the synod; the m etropolitan system ; the pentarchy o f patriarch ates— all realize and m an ifest the reversal o f the stip u latio n s o f the natural need for the collectivity to m ain tain an effective coh esiveness. The C hurch’s offices p resu p p o se the office­ h o ld er’s renun ciation (kenosis) o f the natural su p p o rts th at su s­ tain the exercise o f power, namely, the conventional prerogatives o f office, the m ain tenan ce o f a relentless attitu d e tow ard hum an in ad eq u acies an d w eaknesses, the dem and for disciplin e and the su b m issio n o f all to the com m on goal, the u n q u estio n ed a ssu m p ­ tion th at special honor is due to those who are at the top o f the hierarchy, the im position o f penalties, the projection o f an im p res­ sive presence. The C hurch’s offices are not m eant to answ er the need for col­ lective cohesion; they are m eant to prom ote the freedom o f rela­ tion s o f com m union. They serve the dim ension o f relation, not o f nature. T hat is why the hierarchical ordering o f responsibilities am on g the ecclesiastical offices (the m ode o f m inistering to the com m on struggle for unity) is also a sign (as is also the Eucharist). It m an ifests the Church’s identity, a kenotic renunciation o f any in­ dividualistic claim , a loving self-denial. It is not ab ou t a difference o f ethos or conduct in the exercise o f authority but ab ou t the m an i­ festation and realization o f a different mode o f existence. W hen the ecclesiastical offices do not w itness to a kenotic re­ nunciation o f any (con sciou s or unconscious) self-interest, then the sign o f the Church’s presence is lacking. The absen ce o f the sign is also the absen ce o f the ecclesial event. The institutional shell may remain, alon g with a splendid external appearance and psychologi­ cal sub stitutes, but not the ecclesial event, not the hope o f a tran s­ form ation o f the mode o f existence. All this d o es not m ean that the Church is ineluctably the histori­ cally con sum m ate articu lation o f its gospel. Such a view would negate the ecclesial event a s a realistic struggle that m ay be accom ­ plished in a dynamic manner. It would tran spose it to the level o f a romantic illusion or an unattainable ideal.

46

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

Because the ecclesial event is a struggle, it also p resu ppo ses failure; it con tains failure w ithin it as a definitive (and defining) elem ent o f the struggle. It con tains within it the sin /m issin g the m ark o f hum ankind. T he Church defines itse lf as a field in which w heat grow s together with w eeds (cf. M att 13:24-30), as a net that draw s good and b ad fish out o f the sea (cf. M att 13:47-48). W hat is revealed in th is statem en t is the difference betw een the n ecessities o f nature an d the freedom o f relation. In a collec­ tivity th at is su b ject to n atu ral (serviceab le) n ecessities, h u m an ­ ity’s sin /m issin g the m ark, with regard to the go als an d term s that have been set for the com m on endeavor, sets the in dividual out­ side. For the collectivity to be able to function, an y fractiou s in di­ vidu al who u n d erm in es it m u st clearly be m argin alized , isolated , an d in extrem e c a se s an nih ilated. It is not by chan ce th at every organ ized collectivity lays dow n pen alties, for if tran sg re ssio n or un d erm in in g rem ain s u n pu n ish ed, the coh esio n o f th e collectiv­ ity collapses. The disciplinary exclusion o f sin is a necessity that accom pan ies that nature o f a collectivity. By contrast, the ecclesial event is con­ stituted by that freedom that is capable o f transform in g n ature into relation, sin into relation, death into relation. The presu pposition and m easure o f participation in the ecclesial event is the aw areness o f individuals that alone, sim ply by their natural capacities, they cann ot taste the fullness o f life. Even the m ost virtuous, the m ost talented individual has no chance o f gain in g life, or freedom from m ortality, than ks to his own virtue or talents. If, then, life is procured only by individual self-transcendence and loving self-offering, the logic o f n ecessities th at governs the n a­ ture o f a collectivity (the legal logic o f sin) is overturned. Sin (fail­ u re/m issin g the m ark with regard to the goal o f the fullness o f life) can be insistence on individually p o ssessed virtues, on the delivery o f good works. And the charism o f freedom from being trapped in the individualism o f nature (freedom from death ) can be the expe­ rience o f the in adequacy o f the atom ic individual through falls and failures, the transference o f our tru st to love, to self-offering. W hen ecclesial experience sp eak s o f the priority o f repentance, it does not refer to a perh aps w ounded n arcissism o f regret for

The Ecclesial Event

47

faults. It refers to an aw areness o f atom ic inadequacy, an aw areness that n ourishes in a dynam ic m anner ou r self-surrender to the rela­ tion o f love. In th is sen se the Church’s gospel “en d o rses” sin: it confirm s that in the p u rsu it o f true life the tax collectors, the prostitu tes, the rob­ b ers— not those “who trusted in them selves that they were righ­ teo u s” (Luke 18:9)— precede us, show u s the way. It confirm s that our precu rsors in freedom from nature are th ose who have really renounced any tru st in nature, tru st in their capabilities, the su c­ cesses in exercising self-control, the psychological satisfaction s o f the ego. They are th o se who see their se lf a s so sinful that it d o es not allow them the sligh test m argin for placin g any tru st in it. All that rem ains for them is to surrender them selves to the relationship, to aban don them selves to love. Only heresy excludes a person from the ecclesial event. Only so m e­ one who ch ooses to in sist on a heretical u n d erstan din g of, or he­ retical qu est for, life p u ts h im self outside the ecclesial event. Heresy for the Church is n ot views, convictions, or form ulations that are “m istaken ” (in com parison with those that are “official”). It is not the tran sgression o f so m e objective codification o f the p re­ su p p o sitio n s o f “orthodoxy.” It is affirm ing the m ode o f m ortality as the path o f life; it is im prisoning y o u rself in the n ecessity o f death. H eresy is objectifying love, for exam ple, in good works that nourish your n arcissism while at the center o f your life, like an idol, is only your ego, your authority, your reputation. It is fear o f risking relation, fear o f opening y o u rself to love, o f being stripped o f the exalted “calling” and noble desire to exercise “spiritu al” leadership over the “oth ers” w hom you are incapable o f loving. It is to take as sin fuln ess a finicky self-reproach for m inor faults o f behavior that hide from you the true im age o f your real self: your failure to attain, a s an occasion for repentance, a real self-renunciation. H eretics are not people who sin according to the letter o f som e dogm atic shorthand but people who cut them selves o ff from life and from reality. They con struct their own im aginary world, their own language, their own self-evident incom m unicable truths. In the small, closed universe o f heresy, con tradictions do not becom e

48

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

discernible, false w ords are reality, and actual (though not deliber­ ately desired) incoherence is nonexistent. Heresy, moreover, is to pervert the use o f signifiers in order to give an illusory sen se o f power— in stead o f in order to m inister to the illum ination o f w hat is signified. It is to alienate the m inistry o f fatherhood, which functions a s the “grafting” o f people onto the body o f the Church, and turn it into the pleasure o f exercising au ­ thority over consciences. It is to objectify the form ulations o f eccle­ sial experience and m ake them “tru th s” that have been turned into idols. It is to w orship the letter o f the form ulations, their “correct” und erstan din g on the atom ic level, w ithout the sligh test inkling abou t the conditions o f participation in the com m on struggle that

Chapter 3

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Symptoms

the form ulation s presu ppose. H eresy is the alienation o f the ecclesial event into hardened form s o f institutional en dorsem ent o f the fear o f freedom , o f the pleasure o f exercising power. It is the perversion o f m inistry into the exercise o f authority. It is turn ing the Church into a religion.

3.1. Faith a s Ideology The ecclesial event defines itse lf as lying at the op posite pole to in­ stinctive religiosity; it con stitutes a reversal o f the term s o f natural religion. The ecclesial event, however, m ay be religionized. It m ay be alienated into a religiosity determ ined by natural needs, perh aps even w ithout any o f the external visible m arks o f C hristian particu ­ larity (in doctrine, worship, and institutional structure) d isap p ear­ ing entirely. T his alienation takes place for the m ost part “im perceptibly,” when unintentionally and unconsciously the dem an ds o f in stinc­ tive religious need take precedence—when they predom inate in the personal life o f one or m ore m em bers o f the ecclesial body. The sym ptom s m ay be lim ited to incognizant individual deviations or to a cluster that is difficult to specify: they m ay constitute a hardly perceptible heresy. They may am oun t to a dom inant tendency in one or m ore local churches and becom e a fixed m ental outlook for a certain tim e or indefinitely. In any event, these sym ptom s occur w ithout aw areness that they point to the alienation and destruction o f the ecclesial event. A typical m ark o f religionization is when faith is turned into ideology. By ideology 1 mean a totality o f theoretical propositions (ideas,

49

50

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

principles, aim s, ideals, herm eneutic schem es, deon tological a p ­ proach es) that aim at gu id in g hum an conduct, the way we live our lives. The value o f an ideology’s prop osition s is judged by their practical effectiveness, by their u sefuln ess to individuals and to or­ gan ized societies. The ideological version o f faith tak es the w itn ess o f ecclesial experience precisely a s theoretical prop osition s with consequences o f im m ediate utility for the practical asp ects o f hum an life. Faith no longer signifies the tru st th at is granted to people w hen they love sincerely; faith d o es not p resu ppo se the struggle to estab lish rela­ tion s o f com m union for people to be freed from slavery to the ego. The know ledge that is gained as experience o f the ecclesial struggle an d the linguistic form ulation s that express th is experience are o b ­ jectified, are taken a s ideas, principles, aim s, ideals, herm eneutic schem es, an d deon tological approaches. T hat is, they are taken as “m aterial” that the individual’s intellect can apprehend as personal “convictions.” T hu s faith is transform ed into an ideological con struction that prim arily con tains “inform ation” ab ou t m etaphysical reality. The “inform ation” is not controlled by experience, yet the individual’s intellect accepts it a s certainties because, although it is not con­ trolled by com m on experience or dem on strated by the rules o f correct reasoning, at least it does not contradict correct reasoning. T h ese intellectual inferences for the m ost part convey certainties b ecau se they entail norm ative rules o f behavior th at are dem on ­ strably useful for living together in a harm oniou s society. A s individuals we have an instinctive need to create a protective shell for ourselves through assuran ces o f m etaphysical “knowl­ edge,” through the certainty o f “objectively” ratified convictions. As individuals we cannot bear risking po ssib le (never guaran teed in advance) em pirical explorations, the relativity o f form ulations, the struggle to attain trust. An ideological version o f faith m ean s th at intellectual ap p re­ hension is reckoned as knowledge, that the form al correctn ess o f an expression is reckoned a s truth. W ho guaran tees the operation o f intellectual appreh en sion ? Perhaps the exercise o f the atom ic

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

51

(natural) capacity o f intellection, perh aps also the estab lish ed ef­ fective aid o f a m ethod (o f correct thinking). And who gu aran tees the correctn ess o f the form ulation? A t th is point neither intellec­ tion nor m ethod suffices. T his instinctive dem and for certainty is forced to resort to arbitrary axiom atic pronouncem ents. “A rbitrary” m ean s em pirically and logically undem on strable but psychologi­ cally able to respond to the natural need. In this way an “objectively” infallible source o f truth is devised, that is, a source o f the validity o f the form ulations. Validity is o b ­ jectified in the “source,” th at is, in a specific idol, in a sacred taboo, a s in all prim eval religions. A “so u rce” o f truth can prove to be a w ritten text: the Bible, the O ld an d New T estam ents. Its validity is regarded a s in disp u tab le— it is considered an “infallible” text— b e ­ cau se it has been com posed under con ditions o f divine inspiration. Inspiration m ean s that God is the real author, that he inspired the au th ors to write the texts. Either he dictated them word for word, even dow n to pu n ctu ation m arks (the ultim ate idolized ver­ sion), or exercised a supervision th at excluded error from the com ­ p osition o f the texts. V alidation o f th is kind from on high clad s the individual very fully in protective arm or, neutralizes insecurities, and b an ish es doubts. Yet even inspired texts need interpretation, analysis, exposition, and com m entary. W ho will guarantee the correctn ess also o f the herm eneutical approach es to the Bible, so a s to avert secondary d o u bts an d in securities in the com preh ension o f the sacred texts? It is to avert such d o u b ts that a secondary source o f “infallible” guaran tees h as been idolized, th at o f Holy Tradition. The word tra­ dition has been u sed in the life o f the Church to signify the tran s­ m ission o f the experience o f the eucharistic body from one per­ son to another and from on e generation to an other— always with a sharp aw areness o f the difference betw een knowledge (gnosis), which is conveyed by participation in the experience, and the m ere understanding o f the form ulation s o f the experience. In the Church’s tradition the tran sm ission o f eucharistic ex­ perience is achieved in term s o f the struggle to attain a relation­ ship, in terms o f trust and love— not in the m ode o f transm itting

52

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

“objective” in form ation from one individual to another. T hu s the word tradition in its ecclesial usage signifies whatever experience is handed on to us that is also the experience to which we surrender ourselves. Som ethin g sim ilar takes place in any relationship where experiential know ledge is offered with love an d is accepted with trust: in the disinterested relationship betw een teacher and pupil, betw een m aster craftsm an and apprentice. The experience o f the mode in which we approach the w itn ess o f the ap o stles and the Fathers (our first gu id es in finding our way tow ard the life-giving hope) is transm itted w ithin the Church a s an achievem ent o f love and trust. This is the experience o f the m ode in w hich we “read” an d reproduce every sym bolic outline o f eccle­ sial experience, that is, the m ode in which we paint pictures; build churches; sin g; organize the space devoted to w orship; celebrate the Eucharist; appoin t b ish ops, presbyters, and deacons; hold councils; pray as an ecclesial body (not as individuals); an d fast ecclesially (not a s individuals). T radition is this experience o f the mode that differentiates the ecclesial event from every religion, the mode that we learn experientially, not intellectually as if it were inform ation. T his practical mode is not unrelated to “theory,” or contem ­ plation (theoria), the su btle sem an tic form ulations th at refer to m etaphysical reality. From the m om ent “the W ord becom e flesh” (John 1:14), m etaphysics has been incarnated in history an d its in­ tellectual form ulation s have defined the experience o f the historical probing o f m etaph ysics— they are the term s, the boun dary m ark­ ers, o f this experience. The ph ilosophical language that the Church has u sed to express its experience is not n ecessarily superior in term s o f clarity to the language o f art, or o f asceticism , or o f the in stitution s that express the sam e experience, the sam e gospel o f hope. T he Church’s tradition is all th ese rudim entary ou tlin es— the lan gu ages and m odes o f practice—w hen they operate and are transm itted w ithin the term s o f the struggle to arrive at a relation, within the term s o f tru st an d love. In religionized Christianity “tradition ” is som eth in g else, so m e­ thing radically different from the tran sm ission o f eucharistic expe­ rience. It is an addition al guarantee clad din g the individual in the

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

53

arm or o f certainties with regard to m etaphysics, infallible certain ­ ties sh ored up by supern atural authority. Tradition is objectified as a second source o f infallibility” (alon gside Sacred Scripture), again with the blueprints o f validity built into it. The d ecision s o f the ecum enical councils and the u nan im ous opinion o f the Fathers o f the Church con stitute “tradition.” Here, within a religionized perspective, I am referring to w ritten form ula­ tion s that com plete and clarify whatever m etaphysical inform ation is offered by the Bible in an elliptical or indirect m anner. “T radition” b olsters the authorized interpretation o f the “d o gm as”— it refers also to theoretical “principles,” a s it d o es too to oth er m an ifesta­ tion s o f ecclesial w itness. Only that which can be objectified in d e ­ finitive form ulations is included in “tradition,” only that which can be p o ssessed a s a privately appropriated certainty by the individual. It is difficult, however, to objectify such criteria a s the ecum en­ icity o f the councils, or the unanim ity o f the Fathers. There were councils that were convoked to be ecum enical an d declared th em ­ selves to be ecum enical, but history has nevertheless recorded them as “rob b er” councils. M any q u estion s also arise ab ou t the unanim ity o f the Fathers. Is the validity o f their unanim ity d e ­ pen den t on arithm etical com pleteness, a function o f quantitative con siderations? If not, w hat criteria (w hether qualitative or m oral) would guarantee th at a doctrine is genuinely “patristic” and w ould locate the criterion o f unanim ity only in the “genuine” Fathers o f the Church? A nd is it p o ssib le that the sam e Fathers are infallible when they sp eak unan im ously but are in error when their opinion differs on som e m atter? In religionized C hristianity such q u estion s are sidestepped, or else answ ers are sough t in legal con struction s. It is said an d written, for exam ple, that in the coun cils the bish ops d o not express them ­ selves as d elegates o f the faithful but deliver their opinion s infalli­ bly ipso jure: by the grace that the Holy Spirit assu res them in virtue o f their office (not in their perso n al capacity)! However, despite the fact that their decision s are ju re divino infallible (not through the “con sen t” o f the faithful), an external m ark an d criterion o f ecu ­ m enicity is reckoned to be the recognition o f conciliar decision s by the whole Church. And an other contradiction that clearly rem ains

54

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

unresolved is the follow ing: the bish ops decide infallibly w ithout the plerom a o f the Church on the b asis o f the charism o f their of­ fice, but a presu pposition o f the validity o f infallibility is the con­ sen t o f the plerom al The idolizin g dem and for “objectification” (in the form o f pri­ vately held atom ic certainties) replaces living experiential tradition with a confused m ass o f intellectual an d legal schem atization s. In order to specify w hat the con sen sus Patrum (the agreem ent o f the Fathers) con sists in, we m u st define with objective criteria which o f the b ish ops an d teachers m ay be considered “Fathers” o f the Church and which sh ould be denied such recognition. The m ost com m only used legal schem atization is th at we sh ould describe as Fathers those ecclesiastical w riters w hose texts and form ulations have been used by the ecum enical councils for the com position o f conciliar decisions, or those who have provided “rich m aterial for the con struction o f a full dogm atic system ,” even if their contribu­ tion w as not specifically recognized by a council. A schem atic definition o f th is kind is unable to include am ong the Fathers o f the Church bish ops who have not left any w ritings, even if the ecclesial body has always acknow ledged in their persons the palpable realization o f its esch atological h o pe— such as Spyridon o f Trim ythous, or N icholas o f Myra in Lycia. The problem is “resolved” by the addition o f a su pplem en tary criterion for the rec­ ognition o f “objective” patristic status, the criterion o f “holiness,” at which point a new cycle o f attem pts begin s in order to define (now with “objectivity”) the elem ents o f holin ess or the evidence su ppo rtin g it. The sequence o f legal dem an ds proves to be a vicious circle: n eeds for assu red certainties constantly m ount up, schem atic con­ struction s for excluding any hint o f d o u bt becom e ever m ore com ­ plex. Intricate “laws o f sacred disciplin e” (sac rae disciplinae leges), like th o se that nature d em an ds for its self-preservation, underm ine the reality o f life: the struggle for relations o f com m union, the ad ­ venture o f freedom . W hen an ideological construct replaces experiential attestation and ascetic investigation, such an alien atin g substitution im m e­

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

55

diately finds expression linguistically. O ur language is flooded by tau tologous phrases, conventional stereotypes, and abstract con­ cep ts— signifiers that do not refer to the experience o f signified things. T hese signifiers function by their own power, im posin g mere com prehension a s “knowledge.” Religious ideology is expressed in a language o f “intellectual idols,”13 independent con cepts that have been detached from em pirical attestation (and this auton om ous statu s excludes any hint o f a possib le em pirical attestation ). Here are a few random exam ples. R eligious language states in sum m ary fashion that “Christ brought the full and final revelation.” This statem en t allow s no scope for any concern that such “revela­ tion” m ight be u nderstood as “su pern atu ral” inform ation that reas­ sures the ego. On the contrary, it is obvious that its aim is to clad the individual with psychological certainty. It w ants to persu ade us dogm atically as individuals that by follow ing Christ we are m aking the best choice, that we are securing the best “deal." It obliterates any trace o f a form o f expression that would con stitute a call to em ­ pirical verification o f w hat is signified. “The spiritual world is revealed only to the eyes o f the soul.” There is no attem pt in this form ulation to forestall any possible Platonic interpretation (at the op posite pole to the Church’s under­ stan din g) either o f the sen se o f “spiritu al” or o f the word “soul.” In religious language references to “spirituality,” “spiritual life,” “sp iri­ tual goals,” “spiritual world,” “spiritual person,” and a host o f sim ilar expression s are o f a kind that very easily lose contact with any on to­ logical realism and slip into a self-referential version o f truth, into a “reality” that is in fact conceived only in intellectual term s. The sam e h appen s very easily in the case o f the word “soul.” “If you do not u n d erstan d , believe; know ledge is the reward o f faith— do not seek to u n d erstan d in order to believe; believe in or­ der to u n d erstan d.” A gain, th is is an ap h orism th at is oblivious to the dan ger o f takin g faith sim ply a s a form o f psych ological a u to ­ su ggestio n , with the con seq u en t em ascu latio n o f critical thought, a s any instinctive d em an d alw ays im po ses. Both knowledge and fa ith function in religio u s lan gu age as attain m en ts o f unshared 1 5. “By making idols within themselves they create intellectual idolatry” (Basil of Caesarea, On the Prophet Isaiah 96, PG 30:276C).

56

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

atom ic self-sufficiency, m ore or less a s grades o f com pleten ess o f u n d erstan din g. “The grace o f G od is a supernatural gift granted to hum an b e ­ in gs like an interior illum ination so that they should understand w hat they read in the law and the Church’s teaching.” A su pern atu ­ ral gift th at ad d s the capacity fo r understanding to individuals can ­ not be som eth in g other than or som eth in g different from w hat the linguistic signifiers (and their com m only u nderstood equivalents) declare: som e kind o f m agical force th at operates m echanically with m easurable efficacy. It is add ed to the individual; it d o es not grow like a gift out o f the relationship, the loving response to di­ vine love. A nd grace op erates as an interior illum ination, whereby the adjective “interior” an d the n oun “illum ination” introduce an extrem ely slippery indeterm inacy o f subjectivity into the workings o f the psyche. In religious language references to “interiority,” “in­ terior life,” “interior world,” “interior vision,” and a host o f sim ilar expression s very easily becom e detach ed from any on tological real­ ism an d slip into a “reality” controlled only by subjective psych o­ logical experiences. “O ur pu rpose on earth is to resem ble so far as po ssib le the perfect m oral character o f Christ, to b ecom e like C hrist’s virtue.” “We all have a great an d eternal interest in acquiring a true and living faith, for only with this will we b ecom e eternally happy and blessed.” “W hen C hristians love G od with all their heart, they love them selves, because they benefit them selves, they love their own progress and perfection, their ow n eternal h ap p in ess an d b lessed ­ ness.” “G reat benefit is accrued by th o se p eo p le who, com in g to ­ gether in the nam e o f Christ, seek togeth er in com m on the prepara­ tion o f their so u ls an d their spiritu al perfection. A nd such people, o f course, are benefited w hen th eir ac tio n s are also in accordance w ith G od’s com m andm ents.” T h ese com m o n p laces o f re lig io u s la n g u a g e are typ ical ex­ a m p les o f an in d iv id u alistic a n d pu rely secu lar u tilitarian ism . T hey are u n d isgu ised sy m p to m s o f the in stin c tiv e need to arm or th e ego w ith self-protection . T h ey do n ot refer to an experien tial an d sh ared p ro b in g o f the m ean in g o f e x isten ce , o f th e w orld, o f history, in the h o pe o f sh e d d in g ligh t o n the en igm a o f death .

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

57

They are ex p ressed in an id eological lan gu age o f psy ch ological se lf-satisfac tio n an d c o n sist o f ob viou sly a p rio ri state m e n ts an d ax io m atic “certain ties."

3.2. Experience as a Psychological Construct I call a psychological con struct the artificial certainty that arises (and is proclaim ed as “truth”) when subjective desire unconsciously objectifies its goal, transform in g it into the illusion o f real experi­ ence. T h is is a typical psy ch ological d efen se m ech an ism th at a c ti­ vates the creative c ap acity o f th e im ag in atio n in ord er to conceal the p ain fu l reality o f privation . F an tasies replace the real g o als o f desire. T hey b ecom e the “p lace” o f u n co n scio u s defen sive o p era ­ tio n s th at n eu tralize or id ealize the d esire an d u ltim ately p rod uce the illu sory (b u t ag gressiv e) certain ty o f really lived experien ce. W hen desire is the p roduct o f u n conscious (instinctive) needs, it often h as as its startin g point vestigial m em ories o f earlier illu­ sory satisfaction (prim ary or learned and im itated). D esire never ceases to be a search for the real satisfaction o f prim ary need, but very often it is con stituted on the b asis o f a reinvestm ent in the vestigial m em ories o f illusions. T hese vestigial m em ories refer b ack to em otion al experiences, feelings o f elation, sen tim ental contentm ent, enth usiasm , com ­ punction, ju stifying contrition, relief, joy, serene self-sufficiency, and so forth. A nd their referential dynam ic sprin gs from their o b ­ jectification: the vestigial m em ories are reinvested in the linguistic sign ifiers/sign s o f illusory satisfaction . Thus the recall o f the linguistic signifiers rewords the represen­ tation s in the m em ory as confirm ation o f real experience, tran s­ ferring the certainty o f the real to the level o f language (because the illusory satisfaction o f desire is now drawn from the lin gu is­ tic signifiers). The sem an tics o f th e signifiers is identified with the subjective certainty o f experiential w itness, and therefore with the experiential confirm ation o f the real, than ks to the clarity o f the psychological signifiers.

58

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

The m ode o f existence th at proclaim s and asp ires to the ecclesial event (a m ode o f freedom from the lim itations o f tim e, space, d e ­ cay, and death) is love. And love m ean s relinquishing the egotistic protective arm or in w hich atom ic nature clad s itself; it m ean s exis­ tence a s participation in relations o f com m union in existence. T his relinquishing and participatin g (the transcendence o f natural individualism and the realization o f life as loving relation) con stitutes both a m ode o f existence an d a m ode o f knowledge: atom ic understanding differs from knowledge in term s o f experi­ ence o f relation, ju st as atom ic survival differs from the erotic full­ n ess o f life. As m ode o f life and m ode o f knowledge, love (transcendent self-giving) is always a dynam ic aim , never a definitive p o sse s­ sion —always a “never-ending growth tow ard perfection.” And the ecclesial event, which historically and institutionally defines the com m unication o f th is mode, is only an d always the product o f a com m on struggle to attain a com m on goal. T he language in which it proclaim s the ecclesial mode o f life and know ledge is always apoph atic: it refers to relinquishing the ego an d participatin g in life as relation. It does not su b stitute intellectual certainties for the char­ acter o f the g o sp el’s signifiers, a character that refers to experience. Nor does it transform the struggle’s risk into psychological certain­ ties con sistin g o f illusory satisfaction s. The natural instincts, however, insist on the arm orin g o f the ego with certainties, an d the natural insistence im perceptibly alien ates the apophatic language, tu rn in g it into dogm atic intellectualism , ju st as it also alien ates the reality o f the struggle, turning it into a q u est for psychological satisfaction s. Intellectualism an d psych o­ logical pressure together religionize the ecclesial event. R eligionized Christianity is not interested in ontology: the struggle for the m eaning o f existence, o f the world, o f history; the struggle for the em pirical exploration o f the hope for life. W hat it is inter­ ested in is psychology : not as a science th at investigates the work­ in gs o f the psyche and the “law s” that m ay perh aps govern it, but as giving priority to subjective experiences that acquire the value o f realities for the subject.

The R eligionization o f the Ecclesial Event; The Sym p to m s

59

Individuals who practice a religion under the nam e o f C h ris­ tianity are not bothered (and perh aps have never com e acro ss any relevant inform ation) abou t relation a s a m ode o f existence and know ledge, a m ode o f transcendent self-giving. They are “C hris­ tian s” not b ecau se they participate in the ecclesial event as m em­ bers o f a particular eucharistic body, but because they “believe” as individuals in the doctrines o f “C hristianity” an d in its m oral p re­ cep ts— “Christian prin ciples” form their convictions as individuals. Practicin g “C h ristian s” try to be faith ful as in dividu als to the d u ties th at th eir conviction s im pose. They try to m ake their con ­ du ct conform to the req u irem en ts (the norm ative prin cip les) o f C h ristian m orality.” They tak e p art in com m on w orship but in o r­ der to pray a s in dividu als an d be tau gh t (ben efited) a s individuals, perh ap s u n acq u ain ted with and unknow n to th o se arou n d them . T h o se arou n d th em sh are in the sam e way o f th in k in g an d in the sam e religion but are only sym bolically an d in a sen tim en tal fash ­ ion “b ro th ers an d siste rs”— they have no con cept o f the p o te n tial­ ity (the real p o ssib ility ) o f sh arin g th eir existen ce and their life with them . They co m m u n icate from the com m on cup an d sh are the c o m ­ m on bread o f the E u ch arist, b u t for th e “fo rgiv en ess” o f th eir own in dividu al sin s, in ord er to secu re “etern al life” for th eir own in ­ dividu al selves. T hey fast for the rew ard th at fa stin g offers, not in ord er to sh are in a com m on m od e o f tak in g food togeth er w ith the w hole Church. They ap p ro ach the sacram en t o f repen tan ce an d c o n fessio n in ord er to be clean sed , ag ain a s individuals, from gu ilt, in ord er to gain a validly a ssu red “fo rgiv en ess”— not in ord er to b rin g th eir failure, th eir egocen tric resistan ce to self­ tran scen den ce an d self-offerin g, to the ecclesial body an d sh are it w ith th at body. In short, in dividuals who bear the nam e o f C hristian practice their religion in order to gain, by their own efforts and their own m erit, their individual salvation, the pow er en ablin g their ego to continue to exist for eternity. T hey live their religiosity as a totality o f duties, obligation s, and resp o n sibilities th at are objective con di­ tion s an d presu p p o sitio n s if they are to be rew arded as individuals, if they are to win eternal h appin ess, purely as individuals, even if

60

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

the m ajo rity o f th o se arou n d th em go to perditio n or su ffer e ter­ nal torm en ts. Religiosity is experienced as a price that has to be paid for indi­ vidu als to gain eternal h appin ess. A price m ean s som eth in g that h as value, that c o sts— m etaphysical security do es not com e w ith­ ou t expenditure, painlessly, and cost-free. O f course, the desired goal o f religiosity is also an instinctive desire, an im perative natural need, with the result that any price can be taken as a con solation and be idealized so th at the in stin ct’s dem and m ay be satisfied. The un pleasan t sen se o f the cost, however, is never lost, the sen se o f the restriction o f individual choices, o f obedience to externally im posed rules, o f bu rden som e obligations, o f an an xiou s vigilance often difficult to bear. The archetypal path o f virtue is the “narrow way,” the difficult path to clim b, as o p posed to the “broad way” that leads to perdition. The im perative character o f the instinctive need for the individual’s eternal security m akes the cost o f the “narrow way” tolerable chiefly on account o f the psychological com pen sa­ tion s o f the desired certainty. The hum an psyche (nature) slips into illusory satisfaction s that are strictly individualistic: exalted states o f elation, exhilaration, and ecstasy; feelings o f en th u siasm ; a pleth ora o f powerful em otion s and deep com punction. Every religion offers its believers the stro n gest p o ssib le o c c a­ sio n s o f su ch psych ological su b stitu tes for the desired assu ran ce o f salvation. A s a result, religiosity is m easu red by (and ultim ately is identified with) the m ainly psych ological state s experien ced by the individual. It is a prim ary concern o f the religion s to m axi­ m ize th e different w ays o f elicitin g psych ological satisfaction . They u se evocative rituals, im pressive v estm en ts, stately form s o f etiquette, im p o sin g titles and m o d es o f ad d ress, carefully plan n ed u se s o f light an d soun d. Every kind o f art is m obilized, every kind o f ex p ression (in its d istin ct genre) is cultivated, for deliberate psych ological effect in each form o f art— in m usic, painting, a r­ chitecture, scu lptu re, decoration, an d cerem on ial. T he sam e psy­ ch ological p rio rities are im p o sed on the m an n er o f speaking, the gestures, the vocabulary, and the practical “p asto ra l” advice given to individuals.

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

61

In con sequ en ce o f th is iden tification o f religiosity with the psych ology o f the individual, religious peo p le can m easu re their sp iritu al progress by the in ten sity and frequen cy o f th eir e m o ­ tion al experiences. W hat is esp ecially valued is a ten den cy tow ard m ystical states, a sacch arin e vocab ulary and bearin g, a th eatri­ cal show o f rapture or o f humility. And w hat ch arm s is religious ad d re sses o f lyrical sensitivity, w ords full o f feeling, rhetorical flights o f fervor. A m easu re or criterion o f the piety to be em u lated is tears, genuflection s, an d en th u siasm , togeth er with dram atic self-blam e, sen tim en tal o u tb reak s o f joy an d o f read in ess for self-sacrifice. A s a rule (and very clearly at that), all this theatrical behavior h as an egocentric and n arcissistic character. It operates with the dy­ n am ics o f satisfyin g the self, o f shoring up the ego— and inevitably it generates self-pleasing, u n conscious conceit, and self-adm ira­ tion. T hese psychological states do not arise out o f participation in relations o f com m union, out o f the struggle for self-transcendence. They lie, rather, at the op posite pole to shared experience. They are individualistic ph enom en a that insulate one from the dynam ics o f relation, that im prison one in an egotistic “interiority.” The follow ing typical expression s o f religious language convey very clearly the individualistic character (the egotistic “interiority”) o f psychological experiences. “May You yo u rself sw eeten me, my faithful sw eetness, sw eet­ n ess who is my joy and security, who recollects m e when I am d is­ tracted, when I am broken into a thousand pieces and You put them together.” “W hen I call on God, my God and Lord, it m ean s that I first invoke him within myself. I go into m yself and despite my w eakness see with the eyes o f my soul, see beyond my gaze, beyond my spirit, the unchanging light o f H is truth.” And the follow ing are typical exam ples o f the kind o f language that expresses a psychological religiosity: “I get a very powerful feeling when I pray.” “My heart leaps with joy after confession.” “My soul takes w ing during worship.” “This serm on speaks in my heart.” “I adm ire this priest, how he goes into rapture when he is serving the Liturgy.”

62

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

“C hristianity is an existen tial fullness.” “A C h ristian ’s e x is­ tence acq u ires a profou n d significance w hen h is or her heart lives in th e faith, w hen it receives the su p rasu b stan tial parad o x with deep feeling.” “Let u s clim b up by the ladder o f the virtues to be near to Christ. Let u s fly with the w ings o f prayer to the doing o f H is will. Let us ascen d to H is heavenly kingdom through repentance an d the divine Eucharist. Let u s becom e princes o f the spirit through the study o f H is word. Let u s becom e sig n p o sts to the w orld by pu ttin g H is com ­ m an dm en ts into practice.” “Every Sunday in Church we express feelings o f adoration to ­ w ard God.” “The experience o f paradise on earth is this: th at Christ sh ould govern your heart, th at He sh ould guide your steps, inspire your thinking, be your personal savior an d redeemer.” T hese are ju st a few random exam ples o f the kind o f language cre­ ated by a religionized Christianity. It is a language governed by eg o ­ tistic in trospection (in trospection o f a psychological character), by how the natural individual feels, by w hat the natural individual sen ses. Everything is judged on the b asis o f the degree o f delight that is produced. Religious experience is verified by the psychologi­ cal enjoym ent o f the individual. Religiosity has a need for “objective” su p p o rts: it h as a need for prayer, for confession, for preaching, for the keeping o f com ­ m andm ents. And th ese are not all ju st startin g points, m erely sprin gboard s for the principal struggle to attain relation, self-tran­ scendence, and self-offering. They are therefore not experienced a s participation in the ecclesial event. They are u sed as objective m arkers th at render the su b ject’s religious efforts m easurable, that arm or the su b ject’s egotistic self-sufficiency. T he lan gu age o f a religionized C h ristianity lack s an o n tologi­ cal b ackb on e. It sw ings to an d fro in th e ab sen ce o f any reality corresp o n d in g to it. It refers to psy ch ological su b stitu tes for the real. Its sy m bo lism p o in ts to sen tim en tal assu m p tio n s. Its im ­ ag es reflect strictly individual em o tion al sen sitivities. T he en igm a o f death is u nan sw erable in the perspective o f an arbitrary and childish extension o f the natural ego, an exten sion that Is w ithout

The R eligionization o f the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

63

an end in tim e. T here is no revelatory dynam ic o f the ecclesial event w hatsoever. Psychological sta te s b ecom e su b stitu te s for the realism o f the erotic struggle. Sen tim en tal su gg estiv en ess is reckoned a s real experience.

3.3. Salvation as a Reward fo r the Individual The Greek word for salvation, soteria, h as two p o ssib le etym olo­ gies, which give rise to two different nuances o f m eaning. A ccording to the first etym ology, the word com es from the ancient Greek verb sao d /so d , which later becam e sozo, m eaning I m ake som eth in g soun d (soon), I bring it to its w holeness, its in­ tegrity. The second etym ology derives the word from the noun soter, which in dicates the agent o f the verb sozein, w hereupon soteria is the action or the result o f th is agency, deliverance, or liberation from som e threat, from a difficult situation , danger, or disaster. In the Church’s gospel salvatio n /so teria reflects the first ety­ m ology m ore than the second. The com m on struggle o f the Church is directed toward m aking hum an perso n s existentially soun d (sooi) or whole, toward leadin g them to the integrity o f their existential p ossib ilities— to freedom from the lim itations o f createdn ess. Its aim and pu rpose is th at hum an perso n s should be granted exis­ tence a s re/ation /self-transcen den ce/lovin g self-offering. The religionized version o f C hristianity ten ds tow ard the sec ­ ond etym ology. It identifies salvation with attain in g security, with the certain (perm an en t) preservation o f that which already exists (the individual psychological ego), with the deliverance o f that which already exists from suffering, danger, the threat o f extinc­ tion, and death. In the ecclesial perspectiv e salvatio n is so m eth in g th at is actively sought, a h oped -for w h olen ess th at is always open to a fuller com pletion , that is never b o u n d ed — “the perfect uncom pleted

64

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

perfectio n o f the perfect.”14 A nd the w h olen ess o f existen tial p o s ­ sib ilities (freedom from the lim itatio n s o f created n ess) can only b e conceived o f a s a grace, a ch arism — only a s a gift to th e created h u m an b ein g from the u ncreated an d perso n al C au sal Principle o f existen ce an d life. It is a gift th at h u m an ity’s equally p erso n al freedom accepts or rejects, b ecau se the cau sal con n ection o p er­ a te s existen tially a s the freedom o f in terp erson al relation. A nd the affirm ation o f the relation (love, eros) is realized dynam ically w ith out its fu lln ess ever b ecom in g fixed. W hat we are d iscu ssin g here is the dynam ic o f hope, the “rela­ tion” and “fu lln ess” that the ecclesial struggle aim s at “in hope.” The only experiential foretaste to which participan ts in the struggle testify concerns the difference betw een the hoped-for “com plete” an d the present “in p art”— the difference betw een the desired full­ n ess o f life (life “abundantly,” in the w ords o f John 10:10) and the present atom ic reality o f each o f us. “For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the com plete com es, the partial will com e to an en d” (1 Cor 13:9-10). The difference betw een the “in p art” an d the “com plete" is in­ dicated by an exam ple, the difference in m aturity that sep arates a child from an adult. It is im possib le for a child to conceive o f (to foresee or im agine beforehand) that which he will be and that which he will know as an adult. And it is im possible for an adu lt to return to a child’s level o f know ledge: “W hen I w as a child, I rea­ son ed like a child; w hen I becam e an adult, I put an en d to childish w ays” (1 Cor 13:11). The religious person is not satisfied with goals o f dynam ic indeter­ m inacy or with stan d ard s o f qualitative differences. Instinctive re­ ligiosity d em an ds psychological certainties with regard to the ego’s eternal security, an d only in this way (as eternal security) does it u n derstan d salvation. By the strict (even if u su ally m istak en ) logic o f self-protection, the certainty o f salvation can n ot exist if salvatio n is a ch arism / grace rather than so m eth in g w on by the individual. C ertainty is 14. John o f Sinai, The Ladder, Step 29, § 3, ed. the hermit Sophronius (Con­ stantinople, 1883), 165.

The R e ligionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

65

stren gth en ed when the individual h as objective in d ication s o f en­ titlem ent to salvation, w hen salvatio n h as been attain ed by on e’s own efforts by paying the required p ric e— th at is, w hen salvation is owed a s a reward for ac ts worthy o f salvation, for the in dividu ­ a l’s m eritorious virtues. Consequently, for the certainty o f salvation to function, w hat is n eeded in the first place is an objective (legal/juridical) fram ew ork that w ould codify the term s o f hum an ity’s relations with God by specific divine requ irem en ts/com m an dm en ts on the one hand and by hum an ob ligatio n s/d u ties on the other. W hat definitely n eeds to exist is that dem an d s sh ould be m ade by G od o f hum anity and that these d em an ds sh ould be expressed in specific com m andm ents, the keeping o f which sh ould guarantee hum an ity’s salvation. A clear legal fram ew ork im plies that the keeping o f the com ­ m an dm en ts (the presu pposition o f salvation) sh ould be ascer­ tain ed and m easured with in disputable objectivity. The individual should be left no m argin o f dou bt ab ou t the definition o f “go o d ” and “evil”; the legal code o f the com m an dm en ts should legislate in detail for every case o f con duct (and even o f thinking and in tend­ ing), for every po ssib le dilem m a. Only a legal code broadened to becom e an extensive body o f casuistry can offer the individual the assuran ce o f certainty o f obedience to G od’s com m andm ents, the know ledge that salvation is being won as o f right. T he law! In the w ritten testim on y o f the earliest C hristian ex p e­ rience, the word refers to a dark th reat torm en tin g hum ankind. The law is a curse (Gal 3:10), the pow er o f sin (1 C or 15:56). T his is b ecau se it im p riso n s h u m an b ein gs in the an xiou s effort to over­ com e m ortality by th eir own pow ers, by the c ap ab ilities o f their m ortal nature. People are deceived into thin k in g th at they can overcom e death by o b serv in g the law, by m ak in g th eir con du ct and their in ten tion s su b jec t to th eir individual m in d and their individual will. I f sin (existen tial fa ilu re/m issin g the m ark) is in ­ sistin g on an in dividu alistic existence, then the pow er o f sin really is the law, b ecau se it is the law th at trap s peo ple in the illusion that by individually focused efforts they can be saved from atom ic self-cen teredness.

66

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

The realism o f those who share in the ecclesial event confirm s that “it is not po ssib le for anyone to defeat his own nature.”15 Only the eventuality o f relation, o f loving self-transcendence, an d o f self-offering can lead to freedom from the n ecessities o f n a t u r e only our renunciation o f any reliance on self, our surrender to the grace/ch arism o f G od’s love. “For where God, who tran scen ds n a­ ture, dwells, created th in gs also com e to transcend nature.”16 T his indw elling o f G od is the charism atic and the exceptional, w hereas the usual an d prevailing situ ation is reliance (perh aps even unconsciously) on the pow ers o f nature. T h at is why historically too the religionization o f the ecclesial event, its rolling back tow ard the curse o f the law, h as predom inated. Already in the Church’s earliest years, we find Ju daizin g C h ris­ tian s in the Palestinian com m unities. T hese are C hristians who even w ithin the ecclesial event w ant to attach im portance to the natural need for religion. They dem and that C hristians o f G entile origin (those who had not followed the religious practice o f the jew s) sh ould have im posed on them the religious obligation o f cir­ cum cision17 and the observance o f the M osaic law.18

15. Ibid., Step 15, § 4, p. 86. 16. Ibid., Step 26, § 3, p. 124. 17. Circumcision (the cutting off of the foreskin or prepuce of the penis) was practiced by numerous peoples, and the Jews m ust have received it from the an­ cient tribes o f Palestine. They nevertheless made it the “physical sign” o f the covenant that God made with his people o f Israel, a sign that is a testimony for the Jew that he belongs to the “chosen people” o f God. “This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male am ong you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh o f your foreskins, and it shall be a sign o f the covenant between m e and you” (Gen 17:10-11). Every male Israelite m ust bear this “sign” on his body from the eighth day of his life, and the blood that is shed by the cutting o f the prepuce is called (at least in later Judaism ) the “blood o f the covenant.” 18. The Mosaic law (the Torah of the Jews) is the large number o f regulative precepts contained in the books of the Pentateuch. In the Jewish tradition it is attributed to Moses as prophet, that is, as the communicator of God’s will, the “mouth o f God.” The ordinances o f the Mosaic law are intended to regulate the life of the “people of God" in all its aspects. It consists o f principles of moral con­ duct (with the Decalogue as its core), rules of worship, and legal precepts that regulate the operation o f family, judicial, economic, and social institutions. The keeping o f the commandments o f the Torah allows every Israelite as an Individ­ ual to conform to God’s will. Chiefly, however, it assures him (as a practical and

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sym p to m s

67

In the so-called A postolic C ouncil,19 the Church o f course re­ jected th is first u ndisguised attem pt at its religionization. It refused to m ake the hope o f the gospel su b ject to the individualistic se ­ curity provided by the law and circum cision, and repudiated the insidious n otion o f objective/juridical presu ppo sitio n s to salva­ tion. The A postolic Council, however, did not deny the “n ecessity” o f certain obligation s o f individual conduct: “sig n s” o f the ob jec­ tive/social distinction o f C hristians from pagans. It laid down that C hristians o f G entile origin should ab stain “from w hat has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from w hat is strangled and from fornication” (A cts 15:29). In the first three centuries, there w as no need for any m ore pre­ cise determ ination o f objective boun daries that w ould safeguard the ecclesial b od y’s visible hom ogeneity and unity o f life. For the C hristians there w as the com m on and con stant possibility o f m ar­ tyrdom, which governed their life and w as the m easure and crite­ rion o f w itness to salvation—a practical w itn ess and m anifestation o f the mode o f existence that differentiates the “new creation” o f C hristians from the life o f the “world.” In the cou rse o f the historical life o f the Church, however, after the period o f the persecu tion s and m artyrdom , the “n ecessity” o f the obligation s that the A postolic Council had laid down for C hris­ tian s w as increased dram atically. The legal presu ppo sitio n s for par­ ticipation in the Church’s eucharistic assem bly— or for exclusion from it— con stantly m ultiplied and becam e ever m ore specific and casuistic. The increase in legal criteria w as perh aps not unconnected with the recognition o f the Church (after the end o f the persecu ­ tions) as the “official religion” o f the Rom an Em pire (the Religio Imperii). This recognition m u st have influenced in som e m easure both the way the Church functioned a s an institution and the m en ­ tal outlook o f C h ristian s— it m ay perh aps have contributed to the religionization o f som e expression s o f the Church’s life. visible presupposition) participation in the "chosen people” and in the promises that this people haN received from God. 19, Acts 15:6-29, for the (udaizers see also below, pp. 130-35.

68

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

In particular, the sym ptom o f the progressive m ultiplication o f the canons (legal/can on ical stipu lation s) that were en acted by (originally) local an d (later) ecum enical councils raises the q u e s­ tion: D oes this indicate a dulling o f the con sciou sn ess that the Church is a “new creation” not a new religion; an oth er m ode o f ex­ istence, not sim ply an other (m ore ethical) m ode o f behavior? Even as late as the seventh century, the can on s o f the ecum enical councils (which have universal validity for the life o f the Church) avoid settin g lim its on the con du ct o f individuals, or defining and evaluating cases o f the sin s o f individuals that entail excom m unica­ tion (expulsion from the ecclesial body, self-exclusion ou tsid e the b ou n daries o f the body). A lm ost all the can on s from the first four ecum enical councils refer to m atters o f ecclesiastical discipline, the rights o f the clergy, the validity o f ordinations, behavior toward heretics, an d so forth. The very few c ases o f individual deviant b e ­ havior that are m en tion ed in the can on s have con sequen ces for the eucharistic structure and functioning o f the Church (see C anon 17 o f the First Ecum enical Council, “O n clerics charging in terest”; C anon 2 o f the Fourth Ecum enical Council, “O n not ordaining for m oney”; C anon 16 o f the sam e council, “O n virgins an d m on ks not bein g perm itted to engage in m arriage”—where the follow ing ad ­ dition is very characteristic: “If any are found to have done this, let them rem ain w ithout com m union. We have decreed that the local bish op has authority to show clem ency tow ard them ”; etc.). It is only from the end o f the seventh century (and specifically w ith the Q uinisext Ecum enical Council, or Council in Trullo, o f 692) that a rapid increase begin s in the num ber o f can o n s refer­ ring to general c ases o f sin s com m itted by individuals, to repre­ hensible in stances o f social behavior (o f clerics and laypeople), to the fixing o f pen alties for social crim es, an d to the coordination o f physical life (especially its sexual asp ects) with participation in the life o f the Church. Thus, alth ough all the can on s produced by the first four ecum enical councils together scarcely am oun t to 68, the Q uinisext Council alon e form ulated 102 can on s and m oreover ratified (recognized as can on s valid for the universal Church) a very high num ber o f the stipu latio n s o f earlier local councils and the

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

69

opinion s expressed by various Fathers on general th em es an d indi­ vidual c ases o f personal (m oral) conduct. C anons that serve the requirem ents o f individual self-esteem , n arcissistic respectability, egotistic self-sufficiency— can on s that have no relation to the Church’s gospel but are connected rather with an exaggerated religious pu ritan ism — clad them selves with the authority o f an ecum enical council. The exaggeration s are strik­ ing, for the can on s o f the Q uinisext Council im pose deposition on clerics and excom m unication on laypeople i f they attend “m im es and theatrical perform ances” (C anon 51), if they “play dice” (Canon 50), or if they “style their h air” (C anon 96). From the Q uinisext Ecum enical Council onward, the cases (in n um ber and kind) o f the sin s o f individuals that are covered by ecclesiastical can on s are really astonishing. The can on s seethe with the m ost incredible perversions, the m ost inventive form s o f licen tiou sn ess—various kinds o f bestiality, incest, hom osexuality, an d onanism . They extend over a very broad field o f social crim es: usury, perjury, grave robbery, theft. They lay down dem an ds for a b lam eless social life, especially for clerics. They objectify p resu p p o ­ sition s for the validity o f the sacram en ts, especially m arriage, turn­ ing them into laws. They in sist on the detailed regulation o f m arital relations betw een spou ses. Even if one approach es such can on s in a very positive spirit, one cann ot fail to discern the shadow o f a new law, in m any ways an alogous to the M osaic, that threaten s the life o f the Church. A s if the struggle o f the generation o f the ap o stles to reject slavery to the law had not taken place— as if the Church were not the end, the transcendence, and the abolition o f the religious version o f the law—the can on s bring back the distinction betw een “clean” and “unclean” objects, “clean” an d “unclean” hum an beings. A nd it is not in the least strange that finally there is a canon “on not m aking a journey w ithout n ecessity on a Sun day” (C anon 1 o f the Seven C anons o f N icephorus, patriarch o f C on stan tin op le),20 faithfully copying the Jewish law. 20. The Sabbath journey (the distance a Jew was permitted to walk on the Sabbath; see alio Acts 1:12) was reckoned as 2,000 cubits (about 920 meters).

70

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

The juridicalization o f the C hristian ou tlook is a clear sign o f the religionization o f the ecclesial event, and religionization brings w ith it a reserve or a hidden fear especially ab ou t sexuality an d the natural functioning o f m otherhood. There are can on s th at regard a w om an who has recently given birth as “unclean” and forbid her from entering her child’s bedroom if the infant h as already been b ap tized .21 O ther can o n s forbid w om en from partakin g o f the eucharistic cup on days w hen they are m en struatin g; they regard the physiological function that serves the gift o f m otherhood as “unclean.”22 O thers dem and abstinence from m arital relations both before an d after com m union.23 O th ers deny ordination to anyone who has been sexually violated in childhood.24 They also den y it to anyone who h as had sexual relations ou tsid e m arriage, even if he has lived a life o f repentance that has resulted in a charism atic gift o f w orking m iracles, even o f raisin g the d ead .25 T hese can on s lo se sight o f the b ou n daries differentiating the ecclesial perspective from an instinctive religiosity that dem o n ­ izes the reproductive urge and socially m argin alizes and depreci­ ates w om en (treating them a s propitiatory victim s o f the fear o f w om en ). Growing gradually in strength, religionization led to a host o f su pposedly “C hristian” regulation s sh ootin g up like w eeds, regu­ lation s that present a gloom y an d inhum an legalism an d m oralism , a typically pathological fear o f erotic love, a s an “evangelical” rule o f life. T hese regulation s identify Christianity with asso ciatio n s o f guilt an d fear, with a legalistic stifling o f life. They contribute to the elaboration o f im pressive codes o f law, com plex and labyrinthine b od ies o f casuistry—a dark area o f n arcissistic self-defensiveness and tim orous resistance to grow ing up.

See Leonidas Philippidis, Historia tes epoches tes Kaines Diathekes (Athens, 1958), 462, 487. Isaac Bashevis Singer writes on Jewish legalism, “One law in the Torah generated a dozen in the Mishnah and five dozen in the Gemara; in the later commentaries laws were as numerous as the sands o f the desert” (The Slave [London: Seeker and Warburg, 1963], 117). 21. Canon 38 o f Nicephorus, patriarch o f Constantinople. 22. Canon 2 of Dionysius, archbishop o f Alexandria. 23. Canon 5 of Timothy of Alexandria. 24. Canon o f John the Faster “On Raving after Men.” 25. Canon 36 of Nicephorus o f Constantinople.

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sym p to m s

71

In stan ces are m any and varied: the Corpus Ju ris Canonici o f the Rom an C atholics; the police-like m oralism o f the C alvinists; the p i­ etism o f the Lutherans; the p u ritanism o f the M ethodists, Baptists, and Q uakers; the idolized M anichaeism o f the A n abaptists, Old A postolics, Zwinglians, C ongregationalists, and Salvation Army. We find the sam e neurotic fun dam en talism in the “G enuine O r­ thodox,” both in Greece and in the Slavic countries. Each o f these group s and m any m ore represent several gen ­ eration s o f people, th o u san d s or m illions o f hum an beings, who have lived their one unique life on earth in a hell o f im aginary guilt, repressed desires, relentless anxiety, an d n arcissistic self-torture. W hole generations have been trapped unw ittingly in the torm ent o f legalism , in the disabled existence o f a loveless life. They identi­ fied erotic love with the fear o f sin, virtue with repugnance for their own body, and a perceptible expression o f affection with disgu st at a hum iliating con cession to the brutish side o f hum an nature. All this has taken place to serve an instinctive n eed for the gu ar­ an teed certainty o f individual salvation, for the eternal safegu ard ­ ing o f the self.

3.4. The Eucharistic Assembly as a Sacred Rite The definition o f the Church (the realization an d m an ifestation o f the ecclesial event) is the eucharistic m eal. It is there that the new mode o f existence that ecclesial experience proclaim s is imaged, that is, is potentially realized and m anifested. Such a m ode o f ex­ istence is a m ode o f freedom from the lim itations o f createdness, an exploring o f the p o ssib ilities o f fullness o f life and existence, an attaining o f liken ess to the m ode o f the Triadic C ausal Principle o f all that exists. In the E ucharist we receive our food, the b asis o f our life. We receive it as bread and wine, as food th at is representative and in­ clusive o f every kind o f n ou rish m ent su stain in g hum an life. T his receiving, however, is effected only a s eucharistic com m union. We attem pt to experience the b asic requirem ent o f our life (the tak in g of food) not as an individual need but a s a dem and for

72

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

73

com m union — not in conform ity with the urge o f self-preservation but ch oosin g to share the basic requirem ent o f ou r life: we u n der­ take to transform the natural necessity for preserving our existence into the act o f com m union or sh aring (an event o f freedom ). T his undertaking, w ithin the context o f the eucharistic m eal, is not a m oral aim , nor is it sim ply a m atter o f intellectual resolve. It is an im aging, in the biblical sen se o f the word, where im age m eans glory, that is, the m anifestation o f an on tological reality.26 O ur own activity is our com in g together for the m eal and our desire to share the bread and wine with ou r fellow hum an beings, our brothers and sisters— the sam e piece o f bread and the sam e cup o f wine. Up to this point our activity w ould not go beyond the didactic or sen ti­

“accord” o f the Son’s will with the will o f the Father’s love.27 The a c ­ tive will refers to the m ode o f freedom , and the “accord” o f the wills is signified as the Son’s obedience (cf. Phil 2:8), that is, as the free­ dom o f love. Christ, in the language o f the Church’s experience, is free from the lim itations o f divinity and o f hum anity only because he loves the Father and his love, as freedom o f obedience (“accord” o f the w ills), is the mode o f his existence. The historical presence o f the incarnate Son/W ord is a revelation o f freedom as love, and o f love as unboun ded existential freedom . Love is the cau sal “prin­ ciple” o f the voluntary sonsh ip an d the voluntary fatherhood in the incom prehensible m ystery o f the Triadic G odhead.

m ental dynam ics o f a sym bolic rite. For our activity to function as im age (to realize the desire for partaking o f life as a postulate), it m u st refer as a specific act (not as a concept) to a given (not hypothetical) existential event; it m ust refer to an ontological reality, to an attainable mode o f existence. The eucharistic m eal refers to the historical event o f the incarna­ tion o f God in the person o f Je su s Christ. The incarnation cannot be a circum stan tial occurrence if it really d o es con stitute a mode o f existence, an ontological reality. T his ontological reality is rendered an actual p ostulate (an act o f reference) by the eucharistic m eal. In the Church’s experience Christ is “the im age o f the invisible G od” (Col 1:15; cf. 2 Cor 4:4). H is being im ages (m an ifests dynam i­ cally) G od’s freedom from any predeterm in ation s (lim itation s/

The eucharistic m eal im ages (realizes in a dynam ic fashion, or m an ifests) the ontological reality o f the in carnation o f God. W hat actual factors con stitute the im age? They m ay be su m m ed up su c­ cinctly as the partakers (oi koinonountes) o f the m eal, the things partaken o f (ta koindnoum ena), and the goal o f particip atio n /com ­ m union (koinonia).

n ecessities) o f nature or essence. If Christ is God in the flesh , his historical presence confirm s G od’s freedom from any predeter­ m in ation s o f divinity. And if Christ in reality “has risen from the dead,” his resurrection reveals that on his in carnation he rem ained free even from the predeterm in ation s o f humanity. The ab stract concept “G od” does not adequately m anifest C hrist’s existential freedom from the n ecessities/p redeterm in a­ tion s o f divine an d hum an nature. We have seen that this freedom is declared in the linguistic definition Son/W ord o f God the Father: Christ, a s the incarnate Son/W ord o f God the Father, reveals the 26. See “Image” in Xavier Ldon-Dufour, ed., Dictionary o f Biblical Theology, 2nd ed. (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1995), 223-25.

The partakers are those who by the act o f participatin g in the m eal actively m anifest their desire to exist in a state o f love and becau se they love— or desire to renounce any dem and for atom ic existential self-sufficiency— in the m easure o f C hrist’s own obedi­ ence. The partakers o f the food and the drink share in the nourish­ m en t/prerequ isite o f ou r individual onticity: free w ills converge (in a specific act) in the com m on dem and for existence to be shared in as love. And th is convergence is an active rem em brance (an an am n esis)28 o f C hrist’s obedience to the ontopoeic and life-giving love o f the Father. It is our conform ing to this obedience: a refer­ ring back (an aph o ra) o f ou r m ortal life to the Father, in faith /tru st/ expectation o f resurrection.

27. “I can do nothing on my own” (John 5:30); “The Son can do nothing on his own” (5:19); “The works that the Father has given me to complete, the very works that I am doing, testify on my behalf that the Father has sent m e” (5:36). 28. “Do this in remembrance o f m e” (Luke 22:19); “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26),

74

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

The th in gs partaken o f in the m eal are bread and wine: basic and inclusive form s o f our food that also recapitulate the annual cycle o f hum an life (sow ing and harvesting). We refer the prereq­ uisite o f our life back to the Father in order to actively m anifest our desire to participate in the existential mode that C hrist s in carna­ tion revealed: a m ode o f freedom from the n ecessities an d lim ita­ tion s o f createdn ess. Christ revealed th is mode not by im parting inform ation (teachings or adm onitions), but by the “sig n s”/w orks th at he perform ed, his death on the cross, and his resurrection. He in augurated (w as the first to realize through estab lish in g the power o f its realization) our freedom from our hum an n atu re—the real flesh-and-blood existential power o f transcen din g the lim itations o f createdness. The in auguration o f th is power is C hrist’s gift to hum anity— that which in the Eucharist is called the grace o f the Lord Je su s C hrist an d the love o f God the Father and the fellowship (koinonia) o f the Holy Spirit— the Church’s gospel. Flesh and blood con stitute each hy postasis o f hum an nature; they are the real term s o f real hum an existence. T he flesh and blood o f C hrist h ypostasize hum an nature th at is free from the lim itations o f createdn ess; they are the real term s that hypostasize the grace/ gift o f G od’s love for hum ankind. The ecclesial event invites u s to appropriate the gift likewise in term s o f real existence, term s that are essen tial to existence, namely, food an d drink. W hat is offered in the Eucharist is the grace/gift o f freedom from createdn ess under the term s o f the real in carnation o f the gift (the body an d b lo od o f C hrist). It is offered to u s h um an s as food an d drink, th at is, as the vital prerequisite o f our real existence: shared food, participation / com m union (koinonia) in bread and wine.29 29. ‘“I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat o f it and not die. I am the living bread that cam e down from heaven. Who­ ever eats o f this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed am ong themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh o f the Son o f Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and 1 in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because o f the Father, so whoever eats me

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sym p to m s

75

All th ese thin gs (broken and distribu ted but not divided) are w hat are partaken o f in the ecclesial Eucharist. Food (bread and wine) is partaken o f a s a real reference to the m ode by which the Son sh ares existence with the Father. T his sam e mode h ypostasizes the incarnation o f the Son; it is the body and blood o f C hrist— the existential reality o f freedom from the lim itations o f created­ n ess. In the Eucharist w hat is sh ared is the gift o f p articipation in this mode, an d the sh aring o f the gift is a reality: from one bread an d one cup we receive the prerequisite o f life. The gift is received by shared participation, not as som ethin g p o ssessed individually, in such a way that the actual reception is also a real offering, with nothin g objectified a s a support for a privately p o ssessed individual guarantee. “Your own o f your own we offer to you.” N othing is objectified a s a definitive given fact in the eucharistic m eal, the ecclesial event. The on tological reality o f the flesh and blood o f Christ, the mode o f freedom from createdn ess, cannot be an object that the hum an individual can p o ssess and have sover­ eignty over. The bread and wine o f the Church’s Eucharist can never be a religiously sacralized m agic fetish offered for individual con­ su m ption so a s to guarantee individual salvation. N evertheless, the religionization o f the ecclesial event h as in m any situ atio n s an d historical periods succeeded, progressively and im perceptibly, in m aking even the eucharistic m eal su b ject to the d em an ds o f egocentric priorities. A vital achievem ent o f reli­ gion ization w as to turn the food an d drink that is shared into a su ­ pernatural ob ject in itself, an interpretation that resu lts in the sat­ isfaction o f the instinctive religious need o f the natural individual to p o sse ss the m iracle, the mystery, and the validity, as an object. The m iracle, the mystery, and the validity are sum m arized and o b ­ jectified in the sen sib le form s o f bread and wine th an ks to the idea o f their tran su bstan tiation in the Eucharist. The term transu bstantiation (tran ssu b stan tiatio , a change o f essence or n ature) first began to be used in the Rom an Catholic will live becauae o f me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your anceitori ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever’" (John 6i49-58).

76

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

Church in ab ou t the twelfth century— one century after the defini­ tive extinction o f Latin ecclesial O rthodoxy in the W est and the predom inance o f the parvenu (in term s o f both Christianity and culture) Franks. The term is used to answ er the dispu ted question w hether the bread an d w ine o f the Eucharist really are the body and blood o f Christ. O bjection s were first raised by the Frankish th eo ­ logian Berengar o f Tours (ca. 1 0 0 0 -8 8 ). In order to refute his views, H ildebert, archbishop o f Tours (1055-1133), em ployed for the first tim e the term tran ssu b stan tiatio : w hat appeared to be bread w as in its essence the flesh o f Christ, and w hat appeared to be wine w as in its essence the blood o f Christ. The term w as officially ad o pted in the W est by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) an d thereafter also pen etrated the Greek East. It w as translated as m etousiosis an d w as u sed for the first tim e by the em peror M ichael VIII Palaiologos (1224-82) in a letter ad ­ dressed to Pope Gregory X. It w as later borrow ed by G ennadios Sch olarios (1398-1472) an d su bsequ en tly defended in the Confes­ sio n s o f Faith o f Peter M oghila, m etropolitan o f Kiev (1638-42), an d o f D ositheos, patriarch o f Jerusalem (1672), both o f which have a Rom an Catholic coloring, as well as in the “O rth odox” D ogm at­ ics o f C hristos A ndroutsos (1907) and Panayiotis Trem belas (1961), com position s o f a sim ilar Rom an C atholic character. T he controversy surrounding the term tran ssu b stan tiatio runs through m edieval an d m odern European history— from T h om as A qu in as and A lbert the G reat to D escartes, H um e, an d H egel.30 The disp u tes were intensified chiefly w hen Protestan tism aggressively rejected the notion o f transubstantiation. Luther, for his part, re­ sorted to the intellectual subterfuge th at the n atu re/essen ce o f the bread and the w ine o f the Eucharist w as not transform ed b u t th at som ehow “in” and “u n der” the bread an d the wine (in et su b p an e et vino) there is present the body an d the blood o f C hrist, which are transm itted only “in the u se” (in usu) o f the sacram en t. Calvin an d Zwingli are m ore forthright. They described the form s o f the bread and the wine o f the Eucharist as sym bols only: stim u li for the 30. See Matthias Laarmann, “Transubstantiation,” in the Historisches Worterbuch der Philosophie, ed. J. Ritter, K. Griinder, and G. Gabriel, 13 vols. (Basel: Schwabe-Verlag, 1971-2007), 10:1349-58.

The R eligionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

77

rem em brance o f the sacrifice o f Christ on the cross, sen sible signs that can transm it som e kind o f grace an d pow er to u s when we re­ ceive them a s com m on food and drink. Both the reception and the refutation o f the transubstantiation o f the bread an d wine o f the Eucharist ap p ear to be approach es equally en m esh ed in the term s o f the religionization o f the eccle­ sial event. The first term o f religionization (its startin g point and cau sal principle) is in the individualization o f participation in the Eucharist, which also en tails the objectification o f participation. The reception o f the bread and the w ine is isolated, separated from participation in the event o f sh aring in the relations that con sti­ tute the Eucharist (the eucharistic body o f the C hurch)— com m u­ nion b ecom es an atom ic event, unrelated to existential change, to a change in the mode o f existence. I define a s atom ic an event th at is exhausted w ithin the term s o f the n eeds an d aim s o f the individual, w hereupon it is inevitably judged by the stan dard o f the satisfaction o f individual dem ands, o f individual usefulness, benefit, and efficacity. Thus even the eu ­ charistic species, from an individualistic perspective, are assessed principally for w hat they are in them selves— their reality is d e ­ fined—with a view to ju dgin g how far they respond to individual religious need. Are they sim ply sym bols and representations (figurae, sim ilitudines) o f the body an d blood o f Christ, or are we d eal­ ing with “a change o f essen ce into an oth er essence that happen s instantaneously, w ith the acciden ts (o f the bread an d the w ine) re­ m aining u nch anged”?31 The religious need o f individuals is to know, with certainty and assurance, w hat exactly they are eatin g and drinking in the eu ch a­ ristic m eal. Are they being offered the incarnate G odhead with the elem ents bein g received only under the appearance o f bread and wine, or is th at which they receive in com m union to be identified with w hat it ap p ears to be, an d is it only in an allegorical fashion that the bread an d the wine recall the incarnate divinity o f Christ (refer to it on an intellectual level)? Instinctive religiosity d em ands 31. K. Dyovounlotia, Ta mysteria tes Anatolikes Orthodoxou Ekklesias (Ath­ ens, 1912), 101.

78

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

an “objective” reply, su b stan tiated know ledge th at assu res the in­ dividual—that u n d erstan d s the existential event only through the guaran tee o f the individual properties o f a specific onticity. It is im possible for natural religiosity to un d erstan d that the bread and the wine o f the Eucharist are C hrist’s body and blood b ecau se C hrist’s in carnation too w as and is an ontological reality, a mode o f existence o f hum an nature, not an objective change o f nature (a tran su b stan tiation ) o f one hum an individual, not a su ­ pernatural artifice or sh am anistic m iracle. C hrist’s incarnation did not violate hum an nature; it only overcam e the conditions o f n a­ ture, the lim itations o f createdn ess. “The con ditions o f nature are overcom e” not by the intervention o f som e supern atural power but only by the self-emptying (kenosis) o f the Son— by the fact that in the historical person o f C hrist hum an nature realizes the relation­ ship that the Son has with the Father. T his on tological reality is con stitu ted on the b asis of, and is m an ifested (im aged, with the biblical sen se o f the im age) in the fact of, the Eucharist. The bread an d the w ine are transform ed into C hrist’s body an d blood, not b ecau se som e su pern atu ral power in ­ tervenes an d violates the laws o f nature, “tran su b stan tiatin g the bread and the wine, b u t b ecau se the p articip an ts in the m eal share the p resu p p o sitio n o f their life (food an d w ine) as a repetition o f C hrist’s self-em ptying. In receiving the bread an d the wine, the p articip an ts in the m eal realize, with the p rerequ isites o f their h u ­ m an nature, the relationship th at the Son h as with the Father: ex­ isten ce a s loving com m union, life a s renun ciation o f any dem and for self-en closed existence. A nd “the con dition s o f nature are overcom e”: com m union o f the bread and w ine is a sh aring in the flesh and blood o f C hrist, in the m ode o f existence th at con stitutes the Church. O nly the totality o f all the factors that m ake up the unique event o f C hrist’s incarnation can sh ed light on how a m eal can constitute a m ode o f existence, the Church, and on how the bread and the wine o f our daily food are transform ed into a sh aring or com m u­ nion o f C hrist’s body and blood. It is not a sanctified (supernatural) fetish that is partaken o f but an existential event: created nature free from the conditions o f createdness. T he w hole o f creation is

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

79

partaken o f in the freedom o f the glory o f the children o f God: past tim e (the eucharistic an am nesis) and the experiential present (the struggle to love that con stitutes the Church) are partaken o f to ­ gether with the eschatological future (the hope and expectation o f the nontem poral “kingdom ”). Slowly and im perceptibly the religionization o f the ecclesial event also brought with it an alienated interpretation o f the eucharistic m eal: the su b stitution o f the ontological reality that is im aged in the Eucharist by atom ic psychological dem ands. A religionized outlook interprets the Eucharist not as the realization an d m ani­ festation o f the Church (o f the ecclesial mode o f existence, a m ode o f com m union with life) but a s a sacred rite objectively enacted (by a predeterm ined officiant), a rite that offers individually to each person “atten d in g” the possibility o f receiving a s com m union a su ­ pernatural gift, a “fire” that con su m es atom ic sin s and purifies the atom ic m ind, the atom ic “soul and heart,” together with the hum an body, giving assuran ce o f a guaran teed eternal life. This alienation o f the ecclesial character o f the Eucharist (its relations o f com m union), this predom inance o f priorities centered on the individual, appears fully form ed as early as the thirteenth century (at least in the O rthodox East, as a p roduct o f a very obvi­ ou s alignm ent with the m uch earlier religionization o f Christianity in the Frankish W est). The end result finds characteristic expres­ sion in a collection o f hym ns and prayers belonging to w hat is still called today the Office o f Holy C om m union?2 The aim o f the office is to prepare each C hristian individually for receiving the bread and the wine o f the Eucharist. Both the hym ns and the prayers have been com posed in the first person sin­ gular; they are prayers for the individual that all seek to m ake the individual worthy and capable o f receiving the body and blood o f Christ as an individual. There is no m ention o f participation in a 32. [For the text o f the office, see, conveniently, “Akolouthia tes Theias Metalepseos,” in Hiera Synopsis (Athens: Kampana, n.d.), 279-300; translated into English as “The Service o f Preparation for Holy Communion" and “Thanks­ giving after Holy Communion,” in A Prayer Book for Orthodox Christians, trans. I loly Transfiguration Monastery (Brookline, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monas­ tery, 1987), 321-65, - trans,|

80

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

gift sh ared w ith broth ers an d sisters; any reference (even an indi­ rect one) to relations o f com m union, to the form ation o f the eccle­ sial body, is m issing. The office w ould have been the sam e even if the tran sform ation o f the bread an d w ine could have been accom ­ plish ed w ithout the Eucharist tak in g place or in the ab sen ce o f the assem bly o f brothers an d sisters. T he w hole focus o f the prayers and hym ns is on the interest o f the petitioner in secu rin g a person al assurance, on the an n u l­ m ent o f person al sins, on having one’s person al unw orthiness over­ looked. The concern is that the C hristian a s an individual should receive the supern atural gifts “w ithout gu ilt” and ‘ w ithout con­ dem nation.” T he fact th at the ecclesial event, the existence o f fel­ low com m unican t brothers an d sisters, is em phatically ignored is truly aston ish in g.33 T he hym ns and prayers o f the office refer to the sp ecies offered for com m union with definitions, descriptions, and m ean in gs that clearly p resu ppo se an objectified sen se o f “tran su bstan tiation . And it is n atural that th is form o f expression should prevail the m om ent the ecclesial character o f com m union (relations o f koinonia) w as b ypassed or ignored.

33. In the Church’s collections o f holy canons, there is included a letter by Basil the Great, To the Patrician Caesaria on How Often We Should Receive Holy Communion (see Hamilcar Alivizatos, Hoi Hieroi Kanones [Athens, 1949], 398). If the letter is genuine, the information it gives us is astonishing. It testifies to the fact that already in the fourth century it is taken for granted, even by a “great luminary” o f the Church like Basil, that the reception o f the eucharistic gifts may be detached from communion at the meal and participation in the assembly of the ecclesial body or mode o f existence, and may function according to the terms and practices o f a need and use centered on the individual: “All those living as monks in the deserts where there is no priest and they possess communion at home may communicate themselves. In Alexandria and in Egypt, laypeople for the m ost part have communion in their own homes and when they wish to do so communicate by themselves. For once the priest has completed the sacrifice and given it, he who takes it and communicates from it every day should believe that he is receiving communion from the priest. For in the church too the priest gives a portion in addition and he who receives it keeps it with all authority and thus puts it to his mouth with his own hand. It is therefore possible for him to receive either one portion from the priest, or many portions all together.

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

81

O f course the prayers that m ake up the office are attributed to leadin g Church Fathers: two prayers to Basil the Great, four to Joh n C hrysostom , two to John D am ascene, one to Sym eon the New Theologian, and one to Sym eon M etaphrastes. No historicoliterary study, however, has add ressed the question : W ithin w hat context o f n eed s an d with w hat aim have these prayers d atin g from various centuries (fourth, eighth, tenth, an d eleventh— if they were really w ritten by the Fathers to w hom they are attribu ted an d are not pseudon ym ous) been com p o sed ? And to w hat extent do es their inclusion in the Office o f Holy C om m union place them in a context that reflects the original intentions o f their au th ors? Participation in relations o f com m union undoubtedly p resu p ­ p o se s the denial or overcom ing o f egocentric priorities—which is why p articipation in the ecclesial event is also defined by C hristian experience as an effort (an ascetic struggle) to attain loving self­ transcendence. The ascetic struggle— the preparation o f the indi­ vidual, the readin ess in practice for com m union — is p resu ppo sed for participation in the eucharistic m eal. The A postle Paul, in the very earliest years o f the Church, sp eak s o f the need for th is kind o f preparation o f the individual believer before the eucharistic m eal (1 Cor 11:17-34). The individual s preparation /asceticism /effort, however, which h as participation in relations o f com m union a s its goal, is so m e­ thing radically different from any corresponding effort that aim s at individualistic goals, even the m ost “sacred.” The individual pursuit o f self-denial, w hen undertaken for the sake o f the fullest possib le participation in relations o f loving m utual indwelling, belon gs to one order o f reality, an d the aim o f individual purification from guilt, o f gainin g individual m erit, and o f secu ring individual salva­ tion belongs to an entirely different order. The texts (hym ns and prayers) that m ake up the Office o f Holy Com m union all have aim s that can only be described as directed toward secu ring individual benefits and guarantees. They are texts that serve exclusively egotistic concerns for the rem ission o f faults, atonem ent, purification, an d “sanctification.” There is not the slightest su ggestion that m ight allow u s to infer that what is requested is not fully satisfied by the justification or arm oring o f

82

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

the ego, or that w hat is requested is n eeded to enable individuals to transcend them selves, to be freed from the n atural in stincts o f attain in g self-security, to participate in the ecclesial mode o f exis­ tence. There is no hint o f anything alon g these lines. W hen the central p u rp o se o f the eu ch aristic m eal, th e recep ­ tion o f b read an d w ine, is alien ated into the p u rsu it o f a secu rity cen tered on the individual, th en in evitably every oth er elem en t o f the E uch arist c e ase s im perceptib ly to fu n ction a s a startin g p o in t an d sp rin gb o ard for relatio n s o f com m u n ion . T he E u ch a­ rist b eco m es so m eth in g go o d th at is offered for in dividu al con ­ su m p tio n — a private p o sse ssio n on th e sensory, em o tion al, and d id actic levels. If G reek civilization h as left its im prin t on the h istorical flesh o f the ecclesial E uch arist (on its ritual, its m usic, its poetry, its iconography, its arch itectu re— all the elem en ts th at go into m ak­ in g up the eu ch aristic event, th at con trib u te to its celeb ration ), it is precisely b ecau se th at civilization su m m ed up a lo n g trad ition o f art th at w as centered on so ciety a s a w hole, not on the in d i­ vidual. T he tradition (and its high ach ievem en ts) w as the result o f an endeavor to m ake art serve the city (the p o lis— the struggle to attain relatio n s o f com m u nion ), not the benefit or en joym ent o f the private individual. It m ay be said, broadly speaking, th at the characteristic identity o f Greek art w as always defined by its sym bolic character, its char­ acter as a symbol. The sen sible form do es not signify (or m anifest) itself, it functions as a sign referring to the essence o f w hat is rep­ resented (C lassical G reece) or to the hypostasis o f w hat is repre­ sented (C hristian H ellenism ). The sen sible form “p asses over to the prototype,”34 that is, it refers to the im m ediacy o f the relation with that which is really existent (the ontos on), and is the foundation o f this relation. A t the sam e tim e, with a view to functioning as a sym bol, the sen sible form (the work o f art) con stitutes (in Greek, syn-ballei, “p u ts together”) every atom ic relation /ap proach to experience o f the prototype: this experience is sh ared in (“it is participated in

34. Basil the Great of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit 45 (PG 32:149C).

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

83

by all and is participated in by all separately”)—w hether w hat is shared in is the given logos/essen ce o f each existent thing (C lassi­ cal Greece), or w hether it is the h y p o stasis/p erso n an d the action o f the person ’s freedom (C hristian H ellenism ). T h is effort th at all the elem en ts o f the eu ch aristic m eal sh ould fun ction a s an occasio n an d event for relatio n s o f com m u nion (w ith n ot only the bread and the w ine b ein g sh ared but also the melody, the poetry, the painting, th e ritual, the light, the d eco ra­ tio n — n oth in g b ein g in tended for individual con su m p tion ), this effort is nullified in all its m an ifestatio n s w hen the central aim o f the E uch arist is regarded a s the “pu rification ” and the salvation o f the individual. We need a special study that would trace the history o f the grad ­ ual su bjection o f the various elem en ts o f the eucharistic event to p u rp oses that serve religiosity, that are centered on the individual. Such a study w ould sh ed light on how an d where th is alienation d e ­ veloped, under w hat historical an d social con ditions it developed, and why it w as estab lish ed so easily, w ith scarcely any resistance. In the architectural form ation and internal organization o f the liturgical space, in the ritual, the singing, the com position o f the texts, the painting, the lighting, the style o f delivery— in ev­ ery asp ect— didactic aim s cam e to predom in ate alon g with em o ­ tion al prom pting, sen tim ental euphoria, en th usiastic elation, and rom antic feeling— all o f them priorities centered on the individual. The pu rpose w as that people should be im pressed as individuals, that they sh ou ld be m oved psychologically, that their instinctive need for m etaphysical security sh ould be satisfied, that they should appropriate the transcendent. In the m odern era, under different cultural con ditions when the in stitution o f the em pire w as nearing collapse, state cerem onial w as sim plified considerably: attem p ts to project displays o f m ajesty were curtailed; the ways in which su b jects were influenced psych o­ logically changed. Yet even this vital change in practice and outlook on the level o f state authority did not influence in the least degree the religious leadersh ip o f the so-called Christian world. W ith in­ genious justification s o f su pposedly liturgical sym bolism , ecclesial

84

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

w orship, centered on the eucharistic event, m an ifests itse lf as alien ­ ated in a ritual deliberately design ed to present a religious sp e c­ tacle. Costly vestm en ts o f Byzantine em perors or m edieval kings; golden scepters, m iters, an d tiaras stu dded with preciou s ston es, gold and enam el enkolpia and pectoral crosses; an d princely m an ­ tles w ith lon g trains transform those who serve the Liturgy into ex­ otic im ages o f once m ighty rulers, who continue as religious leaders (prelates, pontiffs, prim ates, bish ops) to exercise suprem e au th o r­ ity an d powers. T his is precisely w hat is dem an ded by the natural individual’s instinctive need for religion. M ost certainly it is not sufficient for the retrieval o f the ecclesial event that there should be a rational and program m atic “sim plifi­ cation ” o f liturgical w orship. The criterion o f authenticity is not m oralistic; it is not the renunciation o f vainglory, or o f o sten tatiou s luxury, or o f autocratic arrogance. The criterion o f authenticity is only the retrieval o f the com m unitarian character o f the Church, the return to the relations o f communion that con stitute and m an i­ fest the ecclesial event. The P rotestant con fession s successfully carried out a program o f “sim plifyin g” the form o f worship, b u t they rem ained fixed in religious individualism with no inkling o f the ecclesial mode o f ex­ istence. T hat is why the result itse lf o f the “sim plification ” w as only an other even m ore tragic decline to a level o f naive didacticism , juvenile hym n singing, and an infantile approach to m etaphysical question s. The fact that Protestantism h as produced som e excel­ lent academ ic th eologian s has had no effect on the sim plistic and naive character o f its worship.

3.5. Art in the Service o f Impressing, Teaching, and Stirring the Emotions In speakin g o f art, we are referring to a variety o f “lan gu ages”: to different modes o f expressin g/sh arin g experience. Variety am on g these lan gu ages is created by the differences o f the “signifiers”—the “m edium ,” the “m aterial” o f expression. In p o ­ etry and every kind o f literature, the signifiers are w ords/con cepts/

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

85

sen tences (the m aterial o f the com m on language). In m usic they are so u n ds; in painting, sh ape and color; and in sculpture and ar­ chitecture, the sh apin g (the syntax, or putting together) o f solid m aterials. Syntax is the defining (syntactic) elem ent o f the lan gu age— in every art artists (m akers, creators) are distin guish ed (and differen­ tiated) by their ability to put together their m aterial, to attain an ever m ore lucidly articulated expression. The syntax p u ts together the signifiers in a m ode th at correspon ds either to the way the lan­ gu age/art is representative o f reality (im ages it), or to the way it allegorizes it or alludes to it. T hese two m odes o f syntax, or pu t­ ting together, are not form ally differentiated. Usually they are con ­ trasted, but som etim es they also interpenetrate each other. W hen the relationship between lan gu age/art an d reality is rep­ resentational, the syntax ten ds to serve utilitarian priorities: it in­ form s, describes, narrates, teaches, dem onstrates, decorates, gives pleasure. W hen the relationship is allegorical/allusive, the syntax refers through the signifiers to a signified meaning o f reality, and the priorities are m ore “revelatory” and less “representational.” In the second instance, lan gu age/art functions as a sign: it signifies som ethin g other than its own syntactic integrity, its own m orphological sufficiency, its own them atic vividness— it con sti­ tutes an allegory (in the etym ological sen se o f “saying som ethin g else ). L an gu age/art in this case calls one (is an invitation) to “p ass over to the prototype,” to ascen d from the m odes o f phenom enicity to the m ode o f truth, the m ode o f real existence. In the case, for exam ple, o f ancient Greek art (w hether o f the sculpture o f the classical period, or o f its architecture or dram a), the artist, by rem aining realistically faithful to sen sible reality, seeks to transcend the contingent and circum stantial features o f given atom icities (or o f a specific physical environm ent) so that by the abstraction o f these features he m ight lead the viewer who com ­ m unes with the work to the vision /con tem plation o f the principle o f the essence o f what is represented: the intellectual prin ciple/ m ode (incorruptible, im m utable, nontem poral, im m ortal—the re­ ally existent) that m akes the sen sible atom icity be that which it is.

86

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

W hen w anting to represent A phrodite, for exam ple, an ancient Greek sculptor did not seek to fashion a copy o f a particular b eau ti­ ful w om an (as later an artist o f the European Renaissance would do). He sought to ab stract all the contingent (atom ic) features o f every beautiful w om an and to express in h is work the features that endow ed every beautiful w om an w ith the beauty o f fem ininity—to express the essence/idea o f fem inine beauty. T h at is why his work w as an agalm a (the general Greek word for a statu e, m ean in g a glory” or “a deligh t”), for it produced the exaltation th at the vision o f truth produces. T he sam e w as tru e for an arch itect in an cien t G reece. He so u g h t to express in h is bu ildin g th o se p rin cip les (logoi, here “re­ la tio n s”) o f harm ony o f arch itectural m em b ers th at allegorized the given law s o f the ord er an d sym m etry o f the universe. He w anted to deco d e an d m an ifest in h is work the relatio n s o f an al­ ogy (an a-lo g ia), com plem entarity, an d p rop ortion ality o f m asse s th at m ake m aterial reality into a cosm o s (an ordered w orld, or ad o rn m en t)— th at differen tiate existen ce an d life from disorder, disproportionality, an d irrationality. An arch itect w anted to show how fo rm lessn ess an d ab sen ce o f order can be endow ed with ra­ tion ality an d form an d m ade into a co sm o s th at w as truly go o d / b eautiful (on tos kalon). He also w anted to show how, conversely, sh arin g in w hat is n eedful (koinonia tes chreias) can be tra n s­ form ed into tru e com m u nion (koinonia k a t’ aletheian), th at is, into a p olis, w ith the sam e prin cip les/law s o f cosm ic harm ony: the m oral p o ten tialities o f life. In w hat is wrongly called “Byzantium ”—the H ellenized em pire o f New R om e/C on stantin ople— art had a sim ilar function. Its func­ tion w as sim ilar b ecau se the aim w as the sam e: th at art should m ean the call to “p ass over” from phenom enicity to truth, to the true (the “real,” ontos) mode o f existence. Naturally, in C hristian H ellenism the location o f truth w as not the sam e; the “really existen t” is no longer the uninterpreted (but su b ject to given laws) rationality th at con stitutes and governs the cosm os. The fact o f existence is no longer predeterm ined by the com m on rational principle, nor is it exhausted in the aim o f en­

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

87

dow ing with form. Now the truly existent is the person as the pri­ m ary existential given: an in dependent hy p ostasis o f self-conscious freedom , freedom that is realized existentially/hypostatically as love, as self-transcendence an d self-offering. Furtherm ore, the change in the location o f the truly existent also changed the syntax o f lan gu age/art, the m orphological expres­ sion o f the signifiers, their functional use. In the “Byzantine” icon, for exam ple, the syntax rem ains as abstractive a s in the ancient Greek statu e. Now, however, the ab stractio n o f the acciden ts (which would have tied the scene to natural atom icity) invites the viewer to “p ass over” not from an intellectual perception o f the individual to the universal essence/idea but from a view ing/contem plation to relation/com m un ion : to approach in g the prototype o f the icon (the hypostatic oth ern ess to which the icon refers) through the struggle to transcend the self, to attain a relationship o f love. At any rate, both in the case o f an cient Greek art and in that o f the H ellenizing art o f the Church (so-called “Byzantine” art), what is aim ed at is the detection an d dem onstration o f the m eaning o f the existent. The objective is that art should function as an invita­ tion to work back to this m eaning, to participate in the sh aring o f the m eaning. A ncient Greek and “Byzantine” art served the struggle o f m etaphysical inquiry; they did not serve “convictions,” “certain­ ties,” or “teach in gs” su ppo rtin g religious (individual-centered) self-sufficiency. It could be argued that the syntax that serves the representational relationship betw een lan gu age/art and reality corresponds preem i­ nently to the d em an ds o f an individualistic (instinctive) religiosity. Religious lan gu age/art w ants to teach, to inculcate convictions and regulative principles, to m ove people em otionally a s individuals, to p u t su ggestio n s to them , to offer them a sen se o f euphoria, o f m ystical experience. R eligious lan gu age/art “n arrates” su pern atu ­ ral events, represen ts didactic scenes, decorates the liturgical space in an evocative m anner, and con stitutes it (sh apes it) with the aim o f im pressing individuals, o f affecting them psychologically, o f com pelling respect for the authenticity o f the supernatural, for the authority o f the “sacred.”

88

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

T hat is why the religionization o f the ecclesial event also en tails the alienation o f the Church’s langu age/art, its falling away from a revelatory (allegorical, hinting at the meaning o f w hat exists) syn­ tax to one that is m erely representational. W here there is religionization, language ceases to serve an apoph atic expression an d art ceases to function as a m etaphysical q u est. The term s (boun daries) o f shared ecclesial experience are transform ed into dogm as (obligatory individual convictions), and the Im age in the painting o f po rtraits com es to represent real ato ­ m icities. L anguage an d art becom e subordin ated to the instinctive dem an ds o f the n atural individual, en ablin g the signified reality to be objectified so that the individual can control it, can p o sse ss it. M etaphysics com es to be presented under the term s an d w ith the p resu ppo sitio n s o f physics. Religious language and religious art are ad d ressed to n atural in ­ dividuals, to the und erstan din g o f individuals, to their psychologi­ cal needs, their m oral will. They p resu ppo se individuals as im per­ sonal units o f a h om ogen eous whole, as undifferentiated receivers an d users. They seek the greatest po ssib le “objectivity” so th at the reception /u se o f language an d art sh ould be uniform ly accessible to all the undifferentiated individuals. T hus religious language obeys the rules o f a com m only received ration al method th at affirm s and ab so lu tizes the capacities o f the individual intellect. And religious art obeys a com m only recognizable m orphological represen tation o f given natural facts (which we call naturalism ). W hen language and art are coordinated with the instinctive religious need o f the natural individual, they lo se their social dy­ nam ic: a dynam ic o f invitation to relations o f com m union, to shared participation in existential oth erness. By serving the objectivity o f word and im age, religious language and art bypass the subjectivity o f the recipient. T h at is, they cooperate in an external an d coercive subjection o f the subject to the objective (general an d undifferenti­ ated) n ecessities o f n atu re—they underm ine existential oth ern ess itself, the su b ject’s potential freedom from nature. R eligionization h as followed the ecclesial event from the first m o­ m en ts o f its constitution and appearan ce— in a later chapter I shall

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

89

offer a b rief historical review o f the process. But the possibility, the tem ptation , or the aberration s alon e o f religionization d o not con ­ stitu te a threat o f alienation o f the ecclesial event. W hat con stitutes a threat is the in stitutionalization o f the aberration. And we begin to discern an in stitutionalized religionization o f ecclesial language an d art in a specific historical period an d geographical area: in Cen­ tral an d W estern Europe a few centuries after the collapse o f the W estern Rom an Em pire (AD 476) an d the gradual m arginalization there o f Latin Orthodoxy. Religionization is institutionalized in the context o f the new reality that em erged in the W est with the inva­ sion an d settlem ent (from the end o f the fourth century and chiefly in the fifth an d sixth centuries) o f (then) barbarian tribes (Goths, Franks, H uns, Burgundians, Vandals, Lom bards, N orm ans, A ngles, and Saxons) that sw iftly em braced Christianity. R espon sibility for a superficial conversion to C hristianity, and for the alien atio n and religio n ization o f the ecclesial event, can ­ not be laid on the p eo p le s who in th at period could not po ssib ly have perceived the difference betw een the C hurch an d a religion. It w as im p o ssib le for th em to follow the then prevailin g Greek ex pression (in lan gu age an d art) o f th is difference. T h is exp res­ sio n derived from an d su m m arized the cen tu ries-o ld stru ggle o f the G reek w orld in the fields o f ph ilosoph y an d art, a struggle (a “b attle o f th e g ian ts ab o u t essen ce,” th at is, ab o u t the en igm a o f existen ce) assim ilated by ecclesial experien ce an d finally ab le to illu m inate the m ost p en etratin g an d fruitful q u estio n s ever p o sed by hum an th ought. The new p o pu latio n s in Central an d W estern Europe rapidly ad o pted C hristianity b ecau se C hristianity w as synonym ous with access to civilization. Slowly, by a con sisten t p rocess o f evolution, th ese peo ples began to attain a civilized way o f life, so th at after m any centuries they cam e to m ake advances hitherto unknown in hum an history. They were led to create their own cultural p ara­ digm , at the op posite pole to the G reco-Rom an paradigm but with extrem ely im pressive achievem ents— the first and hitherto only civilization with an in com parable global reach.

The peoples o f the W est, however, at their first (and, for their historical development, definitive) reception o f Christianity did not

90

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

see in it anything other than, or m ore than, a fuller satisfaction o f their instinctive religious needs. A separate study w ould be n eces­ sary to describe w ith the necessary evidence and to analyze the h is­ torical steps o f these peo ples from the first beginnings tow ard the in stitutionalization o f the alienation o f the ecclesial event. Here I will lim it m yself to a few b rief com m en ts from the field o f art. In the first centuries after their conversion, the new populations o f the W est im itated the ecclesiastical art, architecture, and pain t­ ing either o f the Greek and Latin m ission aries who transm itted the Church’s gospel to them or o f the native Christian in habitan ts w hom they had m ade subject. The so-called Rom anesque style in architecture and the m aniera bizantina in painting flourished from the fifth to ab ou t the twelfth century. And in both cases borrow ­ in gs were com bined from both the Latino-Rom an and the GrecoRom an traditions. T hese seven centuries appear to have been an in d isp en s­ able period o f im itation until such tim e a s the religionization o f the Church in the W est becam e discernible naturally and undisguisedly in its art. By the twelfth century the severance o f the new European C hristianity from the historical Greek flesh o f ecclesial experience— its departure from the term s (boun daries) that d is­ tinguish the ecclesial event from a natural religion— had been for­ m ally accom plished. First there had been the so-called First Schism o f 8 6 7 — the condem nation, by a great council o f the rem aining patriarchates m eeting at New R om e/C onstantinople, o f arbitrary theological innovations an d claim s to universal jurisdiction a s ­ serted by a Rome now under Frankish control. T his w as followed by the second and definitive or G reat Schism o f 1054, which in stitu­ tion alized the severance an d differentiation that by then were well established. The Frankish W est’s rupture w as not only with the Greek East; it w as also with Latin ecclesial O rthodoxy— a severance o f w hat w as then a m inority in the Christian world from the body o f the whole (catholic in the sense o f ecum enical) Church. O f course, from as early as 1014 (when a Frank w as elected po pe for the first tim e), the Franks had begun to dishonestly appropriate the Latin tradition in

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

91

a falsified form —ju st as later (when the Turks had rem oved H elle­ nism from the historical scene) they also appropriated the h istori­ cal continuity o f the Rom an Em pire (falsifying the thousand-year flowering o f the Greco-Rom an world centered on New R om e/C on­ stan tin ople by calling it “Byzantium ”) and ju st as they appropri­ ated, w ithout any historical justification, an exclusive right to m an ­ age the ancient Greek cultural heritage. From the twelfth century onward, art in the W est begins to express the fully accom plished religionization o f the ecclesial event—with a clarity p erh ap s greater than that o f theological language. In socalled “G othic”35 architecture (technically, o f course, o f great bril­ liance both in conception and execution), a religious/ideological intentionality is clearly dom inant: the structure o f Gothic buildings is m eant to im press, to have a psychological im pact on the indi­ vidual, to su ggest a sen se o f the m ajesty o f the building and o f the institution that is to be identified with the building. H um an beings are m eant to feel sm all and insignificant, and therefore feel awe and reverence for the power o f religious authority. We are at the op posite pole to ancient Greek an d Byzantine ar­ chitecture. The techniques o f Gothic construction are not the p rod ­ uct o f a struggle to express reverence for the rational possibilities o f m atter— the possib ilities that m atter should give flesh to him who is w ithout flesh and should com prehend him who is incom ­ prehensible, that the building sh ould m anifest the ecclesial body o f the Word. On the contrary, in Gothic architecture the m aterial is forced, is tam ed rationally, in order to serve psychological pu rposes or ideological designs. 3 5 . 1 quote the brief but comprehensive entry in the Eleutheroudaki Concise Encyclopedic Dictionary [in Greek] (Athens, 1935): “The Gothic style, chiefly a style o f architecture, has nothing to do with the Goths but was named thus—by Raphael (Rafaello Santi or Sanzio, 1483-1520)—as a 'barbarian art’ in contrast to the classical. It first began to be developed in the twelfth century in NW Eu­ rope and was the dominant style for the rest o f the Middle Ages. Its characteristic features are the pointed arch and the emphasis on soaring lines. The oldest and most beautiful monuments o f this art are churches and public buildings found in NW Europe (Notre Dame o f Paris, the cathedrals o f Rheims, Amiens, Ant­ werp, Dijon, Canterbury, Cologne and Upsala, Westminster Abbey and the town halls of Louvain, Ghent, Mons, etc.).”

92

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

An in tricate interw eaving o f p iers an d colum n s, m ajestic p ro ­ po rtio n s, a ration ally b ase d static eq u ilib riu m — all delib erately ten d to p resen t a sen sib le im age o f authority, o f tran scen d en t power, o f an in stitu tio n o f m on olith ic stren gth an d au th o rita ­ tive m an agem en t o f th e revelation s an d com m an d m en ts o f the G odh ead. A G othic ch u rch is n ot a b u ild in g th at is in ten d ed to h o u se an d ex p ress a eu ch aristic m eal sh ared by b ro th ers an d s is ­ ters, an ecclesia o f com m u n ion o f p erso n s. It is a b rillian t arch i­ tectu ral m on u m en t to the h u m an am b itio n th at th ere sh o u ld be rep resen ted on earth th e m igh t o f th e tran scen d en t, the aw esom e p sy ch ological au th o rity “to b in d an d to lo o se ” th at h as b een en ­ tru sted to th e in stitu tio n .36 From the thirteenth century the Greek style— the style nam ed m uch later the m aniera bizan tina—w as definitively aban don ed in pain tin g too. In the work o f Giotto, Lorenzetti, M artini, and Cim abue, there begin s to be apparen t a naturalistic represen tation o f persons, lan dscap es, an d historical events. T h is o f course had been preceded by an even m ore “realistic” style o f sculpture: statu es that fill W estern churches from as early as the twelfth century—with colored statu es as the crow ning achievem ent o f an aesth eticistic naturalism (e.g., o f the cathedrals o f Volterra or N aum berg). The unique sen se o f the existent (the an agogical reference to its tru e reality) is now for W estern art its “n atu ral” character, its “o b ­ jective” fidelity to individual original m odels. Art presen ts reality in such a m anner th at the latter can be m astered by the sen ses and intellect o f the individual, can be subjected to the poten tialities o f a positive and effective knowledge that is not su b ject to doubt. In the fourteenth century, and definitively from the beginn ing o f the fifteenth, it seem s that there w as no longer any search for tru th in the visual arts beyond the dim ension al asp ects o f individuality a p ­ proach ed in a n aturalistic fashion. 36. I have discussed Gothic architecture, its relationship to scholastic theol­ ogy, and how it compares with ancient Greek and “Byzantine” architecture more fully in my The Freedom o f Morality, trans. Elizabeth Briere (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984), chap. 12 (see the third revised edition, He eleutheria tou ethous [Athens: Ikaros, 2002], where 1 give an ample blbliography).

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sym p to m s

93

In the work, for exam ple, o f Van Eyck, Pisanello, or Van der Weyden, the style (u se o f colors, com position, figures, background) is wholly subjected to the d em an ds o f a cognitive certainty that is provided, as im m ediacy o f experience, only through the senses. The “real” is m anifested in the portrayal o f the “natural” and “o b ­ jective”; it is perceived only as a response to the subjective sen se o f the dim ensional, o f the ontic. A realistic visual represen tation w ants to su b ject atom ic o p ­ tics to psychological intentionalities centered on the individual. It wants to teach, but also to stir the em otion s “objectively,” to m ake the im pression s that define and exhaust the m ean in g o f w hat is represented su b ject to the individual’s sen ses. H ence too the op ti­ cal illusions, the lines o f perspective, the receding background, the trompe /oe/7 effects, and the play o f chiaroscuro that becom e the artist’s m ean s o f m oving the em otions, o f stim u latin g our nervous system , o f producin g a sen se o f euphoria in us: a sen se o f resurrec­ tion, o f exaltation. It is the su b ject m atter o f w orks o f art (and that alone) that distin ­ guishes the “secu lar” from the “religious”— the received historical san ctity” o f persons, events, or lan d scap es determ in es the religious character o f the picture. The sam e perso n s an d objects portrayed are th ose o f the experience o f dim ension al space and m easurable tim e— there is no am bition or need on the part o f the artist to tran­ scend the fleeting phenom enicity o f ontic atom icities. Consequently, in the W est’s religious painting any young w om an can be the m odel for a represen tation o f the Virgin Mary, or any young m an can lend his form for a represen tation o f Christ or a saint. Any lan dscap e can su b stitu te for the place o f the ap o ca­ lyptic “sig n s” o f the gospels. The b od iless angels are represented like beings endow ed with flesh an d the density o f m ateriality. Even the C ausal Principle o f all that exists, who is in accessible to any definition—the invisible, unim aginable, incom prehensible, inex­ pressible, u nn am eable Father— is represented as a w hite-haired old man. And the Paraclete, the life-giving Spirit o f the Father, is shown as a well-fed pigeon!

94

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

O ppressively this-worldly, religious painting functions in a way that is su bject to the idolized d em an ds o f instinctive religiosity. It knows nothing o f any attem pt “to p ass over to the prototype"— to refer to the reality o f personal hypostasis, the principle o f personal activities. It represen ts the world o f the sen ses ideologically sacralized, that is, trapped in predeterm in ation s by the atom ic intellect, by atom ic psychological need. T his kind o f art expressed the religionization o f the ecclesial event in the W est and still expresses it today—with chan ges o f style re­ flecting current trends. The sam e kind o f art w as also borrowed by the O rthodox East, im m ediately after the h eadlon g religionization o f the ecclesial event began there too. First it w as Russian Christianity that unhesitatingly adopted the n aturalistic religious art o f the W est w ithin the context o f the m ore general W esternization im posed by the reform s o f Peter the G reat (end o f the seventeenth to the beginn ing o f the eighteenth centuries). T his w as followed from the nineteenth century to the present day by the eager (and therefore radical) W esternization o f life and the concom itant religionization o f the ecclesial event by the Greeks, Serbs, Rom anians, and Bulgarians, who drew in their wake the ancient patriarchates o f the East. In all these local churches (and even on the Holy M ountain), there w as no resistance to the aban don m en t o f ecclesiastical iconography and to the w idespread use o f the naturalistic style o f religious art. Far fewer centuries were n eeded for w hat had happen ed ear­ lier in the m edieval W est to be accom plished in the m odern East— w ithout th is tim e the existence in advance o f any schism , th at is, a visible break with som e (historically active) authentic rem nant o f the ecclesial event. Fidelity to the O rthodox form ulation o f “d o g ­ m atic” teachin g or to som e continuity th at has been preserved in form s o f w orship creates in m any people the illusion that a vital difference continues to exist betw een Eastern and W estern C hris­ tianity. Art, however, not bein g controlled by ideological choices, confirm s very convincingly th at an “unconsciously” accom plished assim ilation has taken place, that is, th at the religionization o f the

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

95

m ajority o f the C hristian world, in both the W est an d the East, has finally been brought about. In w hat are still called “O rthodox churches,” there continues to be celebrated every year the Sunday o f Orthodoxy, a feast celebrat­ ing the R estoration o f Icons in 843, w hen the ecclesial language o f the icons w as saved from the attack o f the icon oclasts—w hen the ecclesial con sciou sn ess that is expressed in the art o f the Church’s icons w as preserved. Iconoclasm w as a typical exam ple o f a religious outlook th at idolizes intellectual con cepts and m oral teachings, that refuses to risk attaining relation/com m un ion , to risk “passin g over” to the “prototype” o f the personal hy postasis o f being. The R estoration o f the Icons continues to be celebrated by the “O rthodox,” but in churches where ecclesiastical icons no longer exist, where n aturalistic religious painting predom in ates either en ­ tirely or for the m ost part. R epresentations o f sen sible and eph em ­ eral reality, m aking idols o f sen tim ental feelings an d o f a naive di­ dacticism , are honored and carried in procession in the place o f the icons, w ithout any idea that the feast is being celebrated with its term s— term s/sign ifiers o f the Church’s go sp el— com pletely overturned. Art loudly and im placably proclaim s the Church’s religioniza­ tion. Conceptual language h as artifices for hiding alienation, for disgu isin g the fake— and so d o es religious piety: it is superb at m ain taining the illusion o f authenticity. Art, however, is not good at subterfuges. It inevitably reveals the mode by which th ose who practice it an d th o se who ch oose it see reality and endow it with m ean in g— art cann ot hide the n eeds th at it serves. The G othic style in the M iddle A ges (and, successively, the baroque, the rococo, and the neoclassical form s o f architecture) clearly sought to provide a settin g for religious rites, not to h ou se the event o f the Church’s Eucharist. The churches built in the “O rthodox” countries from the nineteenth century to the present day have the sam e aim : they cry out that they are utterly unrelated to the eucharistic event and the eucharistic eth o s— they serve an individualistic psychological reli­ giosity, chiefly w hen they im itate (with stereotypical form s, th at is, with a sh am intention) the “Byzantine” m odel.

96

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

W henever and wherever the ecclesial event is operative, every a s ­ pect o f th is operation, down to the sm allest detail, is a practical form o f thanksgiving (in Greek, eucharistia): the receiving o f the world as a gift o f divine love endow ed with reason, and as its com ­ m on /sh ared rational offering back to the C ause and Provider o f the gift. The use o f the w orld (o f stone, wood, colors, sounds, candles, incense, bread, and w ine) b ecom es a relation o f loving com m u­ nion— nature becom es relation. N oth ing fun ctions as decoration in this operation . T h at is, n othin g is directed tow ard in dividuals with a view to im pressin g them , teachin g them , giving th em pleasure, m oving them , giving them a sen se o f elation. T he ecclesial event m ean s th at life b e ­ com es an ek-static an aphora, a loving self-offering, an experience o f freedom from a life centered on the individual and program m ed for death. The building th at sh elters the realization o f the ecclesial event, the eucharistic com m unity, also fu n ctions in the mode o f the Church: it ex presses the relation o f the structu re w ith the m a­ terials o f its con stru ction —a respect for m atter an d thus a d em ­ on stration o f its ration al potentialities, the po ten tialities o f every kind o f m aterial to in dicate the prin cip le/logo s o f the ineffable. T he pu rpose and the m otive for the con stru ction are not id eologi­ cal, nor are they in dependently aesth etic, nor are they psych ologi­ cal. The a rtist u n dertakes to m an ifest by the m ode o f execution the sam e relation th at the p articip an ts in the Eucharist realize with the bread an d the wine. N or is the m usic sim ply to deligh t or to teach w hen the eccle­ sial event is fun ctionin g— it too serves the com m union o f persons. Gregorian plainson g, like today’s so -called Byzantine liturgical chant, is a m usical technique th at aim s at w hat I w ould call free­ dom from the ego: leaving behind an in dividualistic enjoym ent/ em o tion /exaltation with a view to attain in g participation in a com m union th at co n sists in a mode o f com m on (ecclesial) offer­ in g/in tercession /th an ksgivin g. By contrast, polyphonic m usic (a technique that has resulted in in disputably w onderful achievem ents) respon d s chiefly to the reli­ giou s need and dem and: it is add ressed to the individual in order

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

97

to serve the individual, the individual’s em otion al/psych ological sensitivity, the religious satisfaction s that the individual seeks to enjoy— im pressive majesty, m ystical credulity, rapture, and em o ­ tional exaltation. The so-called “O rth odox” churches, however, in Russia, Greece, Serbia, Rom ania, Bulgaria, or elsew here have not show n the sligh t­ est h esitation in w elcom ing polyphonic m usic in their worship, adoptin g it w ithout reservation, a s they have done with n atu ralis­ tic painting. T his obvious reception o f an individualistic art at the opposite pole to the ecclesial mode is evidence, rather, o f a firmly establish ed religionization. In the last d ec ad es o f the tw entieth century, so m eth in g like an aw akenin g o f aw aren ess o f the alien atio n th at had been acco m ­ plish ed has begu n to be ap p are n t in the life o f th e “O rth od o x ” church es. Two n am es m ay be m en tion ed a s represen tative o f the need for litu rgical art, esp ecially pain tin g, to rediscover its e c ­ clesial ch aracter: Leonid U spen sky an d P hotis K ontoglou. W hat also h elped w as the aw akenin g o f ap p reciatio n an d in deed great ad m iratio n in the W estern art w orld for icon s o f the R u ssian and G reek trad ition s. So m eth in g sim ilar m ay also be observed in the sector o f eccle­ siastical m usic, particularly in the G reek context. H ere the n am es o f Sim on K arras and Lycurgos A n gelo p o u los m ay be regarded as represen tative o f the attem p t to create a broader in terest in th is strik in g m u sical trad ition (in its recording, study, an d revival). N or sh ou ld we u n d erestim ate the con tribu tion o f the great p re­ centors o f the Patriarch ate o f C on stan tin op le who cam e to Greece as refugees. We have been d iscu ssin g an aw akening that is well docum ented and acknow ledged. It is nevertheless difficult to tell w hether this aw akening is always ab ou t the con scious aw areness o f an accom ­ plished religionization with a concom itant search for ecclesial au ­ thenticity, or w hether it prim arily concerns the rediscovery o f a high art that had been thrust asid e and depreciated by p roducts o f m uch inferior quality and interest. The dead, form al im itation o f “Byzantine" painting, or the perform ance o f revivals o f “Byzantine”

98

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

m usic for individual, even if pious, con sum ption do not necessarily indicate a return to the ecclesial event. T he fact is clear: ecclesial art can n ot exist w ith ou t the fu n ctio n ­ in g o f a livin g cell o f th e ecclesial body: a eu ch aristic com m u n ity / p arish .

3.6. The Eclipse o f the Parish The religionization o f the Church is a facet o f the in dividualiza­ tion o f faith, ascetic practice, and worship. Faith is alienated into the beliefs o f the individual, ascetic practice into the m orality o f the individual, and w orship into the duty o f the individual. Correct beliefs, obedience to m oral precepts, and adherence to obligations o f w orship are sufficient to ensure justification and salvation for the individual. N othing collective is p resu ppo sed in the religious version o f piety or o f salvation— neither com m unity, which is the body o f re­ latio n s o f com m union that assem b les at the eucharistic m eal, nor participation in th is assem bly, nor the seekin g o f salvation in a change o f mode o f existence: the p assin g over from the natural urge o f self-preservation/sovereignty to loving self-transcendence and self-offering. In religionized Christianity every form o f collectivity is justifi­ able only so long a s it contributes (as an aid, as a strengthening factor) to the cultivation o f an individualistic piety. W orship is a group exercise so th at individuals m ight learn from the exam ple o f their fellow w orshipers in the sam e place, so that their fervor m ight be strengthened for person al prayer. Individuals participate in the eucharistic m eal as a reward for their virtue and “purity,” as a supplem en tary confirm ation o f the rem ission o f sin s th at has been granted to them in con fession for the (en igm atic/“supernatural,” quasi-m agical) advance assuran ce o f “eternal life.” T he rem ain in g sacram en ts in religion ized C hristianity are all con sisten tly in dividualized. Cut o ff from the eu ch aristic event o f the C hurch’s assem bly, they are p reserved a s rites that refer only to

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

99

a specific individual (and em o tion ally to th at in d iv idu al’s friends an d relatio n s), a s “ritu a ls” th at provide so m e kind o f in determ i­ nate, su p ern atu ral b le ssin g /“grace” th at is likew ise received in a m agical fashion. T he sacram en t o f m arriage, for exam ple, le g al­ izes the sexu al relation sh ip o f the cou ple (a relatio n sh ip regarded a s in itse lf sin fu l), gives it so cial recognition, an d accom p an ies it w ith m oral advice. T he sacram en ts o f baptism an d chrism ation are celebrated in the ab sen ce o f the eu ch aristic com m u n ity into which, supposedly, th e newly b ap tized is in corporated (as a liv­ ing b od y)— they are sim ply sym bolic a c ts for the acq u isitio n o f a C h ristian identity. In con fession an d unction we a lso have two ritu als th at have been com pletely in div idu alized. Any cleric can perform th em for any individual, one in dividu al for another, o u tsid e any con text o f a sp ecific eu ch aristic com m unity. It is a s if th ere is no aw are­ n ess th at we are d ealin g w ith “m y steries”— sa c ra m e n ts—which for the C hurch m ean s the m an ifestatio n an d realizatio n o f its truth, th at is, o f the eu ch aristic m od e o f existen ce em b o d ied in a com m unity. Even ordination, the only sacram en t that rem ain s em bedded in the context o f the Eucharist, is perform ed in the absen ce o f the specific ecclesial body for which the ordained bish op or presbyter will have pastoral responsibility. Even the sacram en t o f ordination in religionized C hristianity is a form al ritual and is therefore car­ ried ou t in any church by any bish op or bishops, a s if it concerned the bestow al o f a person al religious rank (“priest” or “archpriest,” as in all the religions) w ith absolu tely no participation o f the body o f the diocese or parish that will experience him a s a father. Even if the Church’s sacram en ts or m ysteries (sig n s o f the re­ alization and m an ifestation o f the Church) have been com pletely individualized in religionized Christianity, it is easy for one to d e ­ duce w hat is h appen ing w ith ascetic practice, ask esis—the m odes o f the com m on struggle to coordinate will and practice with the aim o f attaining con sisten cy in love. The m eaning o f askesis, its ec­ clesial character, is unknown. Its sh ared m ode and goal, the chasm that separates it from ethics, are likew ise unknown. In religionized Christianity the individual fasts, prays, gives alm s, and contributes

100

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

to good works b ecau se all th ese secure a personal reward, are gu ar­ an tees o f salvation on an individual basis. We are lo sin g the aw areness th at a s C hristians we pray, we cel­ ebrate the sacram en ts, we believe in /en tru st ourselves to the ec­ clesial gospel, an d we undertake the ascetic struggle only because we live em b edd ed in the specific body o f a eu ch aristic com m unity. But it is only by bein g em bedd ed in th is way th at we can feel our way tow ard a realistic hope o f change in our m ode o f existence, a realistic hope o f freedom from tim e and death . W ithout a specific em b ed d in g/p articip ation , all the rest rem ain on the level o f eph em eral psych ological experien ces or illu sion s o f religiosity, u n ­ related to the reality o f our existence an d our life. R eligionization destroys the priority o f the eucharistic body that con stitutes the Church, w ithout ab olish in g the outw ard in stitu ­ tion al/organ ization al form s o f the ecclesial collectivity: the diocese and the parish . The outw ard form s are preserved, although they are radically alienated. The pivotal principle, cause, an d goal o f their con stitution are no longer the eucharistic m eal, the realization and m an ifestation o f the body o f a eucharistic community. D iocese and parish are determ ined by priorities o f “practical” utility, by the d e ­ m an ds o f organization al effectiveness. In con ditions o f religionization people u n derstan d by the word “church” the organization al and adm inistrative m echan ism o f a re­ ligion— o f the C hristian religion. T his is seen as a m echan ism that exists to serve “the religious n eeds o f the people.” If C hristianity is professed by the m ajority o f the population, m odern legislation recognizes it a s the “prevailing religion” and gran ts it certain pre­ rogatives. If not, it com es under the sam e legal regim e a s any other faith or religious sect. Church, then, in con ditions o f religionization is the ad m in istra­ tive expression o f the “Christian religion.” It h as its organization al h eadqu arters (patriarchate or archiepiscopal see) usually in the state capital, and local adm inistrative u nits (dioceses, m etropoli­ tan ates) in the outlying region s— like all organ ization s o f com m on benefit. Each regional unit h as su b sid iaries (“b ranches”) in every urban center or rural com m unity (parishes) to serve the religious

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

101

n eeds o f the population. Thus, in the m ind o f many, a religion­ ized church d o es not differ from any oth er organization o f com m on benefit (social insurance offices, em ploym ent offices, care centers for the elderly, spo rts facilities, etc.). It is not by accident that in con ditions o f religionization people m ean by the word church only buildings, offices, an d ad m in istra­ tive personnel. A nd ju st as they identify every public organization with its higher m anagem ent, so they also identify the church with the bish ops alone, or m ore broadly with the clergy. This identification, however, clearly flatters the bishops, who treat it a s self-evident. They say “The Church has decided,” “The Church judges,” “The Church thinks,” an d they m ean them selves as individuals or the adm inistrative in stitution o f the synod o f b ish ­ ops, with unw itting (and aston ish in g) self-satisfaction . They seem to be unaw are that the bishop d o es not exist w ithout the lay body o f the bishopric, nor does the Church exist w ithout the laity for whom the bishop has been estab lish ed as father and servant. W hen the parish ceases to be identified with the eucharistic community, a body o f relations o f com m union, w hen it is obviously considered to be an “an n ex” or “branch office” o f a centrally ad ­ m inistered religious institution, then it is not su b ject to num erical control: the num ber o f parish ioners is determ ined not by the goal o f creating a com m unity but by the goal o f satisfyin g the “religious n eed s” o f individuals. And the parish, in the great urban centers, has proved to be able to satisfy the “religious n eed s” o f th o u san d s if not tens o f th o u san d s o f people. Naturally, for these tens o f th o u san d s o f “parish ion ers” to be served, a single presbyter is not sufficient. Therefore in the sam e parish a second an d third presbyter are ad d ed —a w hole team o f presbyters. T hu s the goal o f assem b lin g the eucharistic body with one father an d shepherd is wholly lost, for the presbyter serving each celebration o f the Liturgy is not always the sam e one. The Ro­ m an Catholic Church, which w as the first to lose the sen se and re­ ality o f the parish, estab lish ed m ultiple successive celebrations o f the Eucharist on the sam e day in the sam e church building. And with the growth o f urban centers, the so-called O rthodox churches hastened to im itate them . T hu s the identification o f the Eucharist

102

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

with the assem bly o f the parish com m unity w as also excluded liturgically— the parish becam e fixed in the popu lar con sciou sn ess as an “an n ex” or “branch” o f a religious institution that offers services quantitatively sufficient to satisfy the psychological n eeds o f indi­ viduals who are strangers to each other. In the “parish es” o f m odern conurbations that num ber tens o f th o u san d s o f “parishioners,” people participate in the Eucharist in con ditions o f com plete anonym ity and isolation from each other. Each “churchgoer” is an unknow n person am on g other unknown persons, m ore alone than in the auditorium o f a cinem a, theater, or concert hall, or on the terraces o f a football ground. Each prays alone, feels com pun ction alone, is tau gh t alone, and exults or m ourns alone, w ithout com m unicatin g anything with those stan d ­ ing in close proximity. And all patiently aw ait their turn to “com ­ m unicate” o f the bread and wine, assu red intellectually and psy­ chologically that they are receiving the body and blood o f Christ from the h ands o f a celebrant with w hom they do not have even a form al personal acqu ain tan ce— ju st as they have not exchanged even a perfunctory greeting with those who “com m unicate” before or after them from the com m on cup. It is revealing th at language, w hen its sem antic function is not con­ trolled by reason, returns with religionization to the vocabulary o f a natural religion. G reek-speaking C hristians no longer refer, ei­ ther privately or officially, to presbyters an d bish ops; they speak o f p riests and high priests, as in any religion. A nd this change in lan ­ guage reflects a change in the reality o f w hat is signified. In reality the bishop, under conditions o f religionization, is only or chiefly a high priest. He is an official o f a religious institution, the bearer o f “sacred ” authority, the governor and judge o f priests absolutely dependent upon his decision s, the m onarchic head o f services an d offices o f the organization al m achine that con stitutes his diocese, and the adm inistrator o f often a large am oun t o f capital deriving from the incom e o f parish es and m onasteries, gifts, and subventions. There are hardly any institutional possibilities for him to be the father and pastor o f a body o f relations o f com m union. Fatherhood and pastoral responsibility are construed as an ob liga­

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sym p to m s

10S

tion to hand out piou s advice, proffer encouragem ent, and utter m oralizing p latitu d es— the cross-bearin g service o f a bishop has been distorted to becom e a m on om ania for preaching. The bishop is obliged to be a prop agan dist for ideological convictions and regulative prin ciples o f conduct, and also a provider o f works o f public benefit: philanthropic foundations, welfare in stitutes, and altruistic initiatives. The episcopal m odel in conditions o f religionization is clearly Vatican-inspired. The high priest/pon tifex controls the fidelity o f the clergy to the official religious ideology and their adequacy to the task o f serving the religious n eeds o f the people. Chiefly, how­ ever, he takes care o f his im age as “C hrist’s representative on earth ” (vicarius Christi)—w hat is o f prim ary im portance is the theatrical grandeur o f his liturgical appearance: provocatively ostentatious, opulent, and detach ed from reality. Everything is justified as sym ­ bolic (in a highly intellectualistic sen se), w hereas its historical provenance confirm s the shrewd adaptation o f certain personal privileges that em perors granted to specific patriarchs.37 The distin guish in g m ark o f the bishop w as the pallium (om ophorion) worn over the presbyter’s chasuble {phelonion)—as the Fathers o f the Church are represented in the iconographical tradition. Today, even in the sm allest and m ost hum ble diocese the high priest (archiereus) and “m aster” (despotes) m ou n ts a throne while dressed literally as a person not belonging to this world am ong his p easan t or w orking-class flock. He is vested in the tu ­ nic (sak k o s) o f a Rom an em peror (or a m antle with a long train), a crown (m itra), and a scepter (p a te ritsa )—and he is acclaim ed in­ cessantly by choirs o f cantors (with the im perial acclam ation Eis polla ete despota, “May you live m any years, m aster”) and incensed by the deacons like a pagan statue. The high p r ie s ts ’ defend this now “tradition al” cerem onial, explaining that they need to be clothed in this m ythical m ajesty to sym bolize Christ, who assu m ed hum an nature in order to glorify 37. See Robert Taft, The Pontifical Liturgy o f the Great Church according to a Twelfth-Century Diataxis in Codex British Museum Add. 34060,” pt. 1, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 45 (1979): 279-397; and pt. 2, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 46 (1980): 82-124.

104

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

it w ith a royal glory. They do not explain why they m u st sym bolize only the royal glory o f C hrist’s hum an nature an d never the m odel he laid down for his d isciples: “You also ought to w ash one an oth ­ er’s feet. For I have set you an exam ple, th at you also should do as I have done to you” (John 13:14-15); “And w hoever w ishes to be first am o n g you m u st be your slave” (M att 20:27). T hese are w ords w hose m ean in g has been enervated by the in­ stin ctual need o f religionization. It is a m atter o f genuine perplex­ ity how people who receive such honors sacralizin g their perso n s m an age to preserve som e kind o f psychological (and intellectual) b alan ce— especially w hen they have ascen ded to such m agnificence from relatively low social an d cultural origins (as is often the case in m odern con ditions), and m oreover w hen all this self-evident, program m atic, an d in stitutionalized flattery o f their narcissistic in stincts is accom pan ied by sexual privation. Such privation (often or as a rule) h as not been chosen b ecau se o f any inclination toward the m on astic and ascetical life, or b ecau se o f a desire to participate in a com m on effort to attain com m union w ithin the context o f a cenobitic m on astic community. Sexual privation h as been accepted program m atically as a career requirem ent, a s the path to religious offices carrying authority. At any rate, the m ost painful con sequen ce o f the “high priestly” alienation o f the b ish op’s function is largely the obscu ring o f the goal (the hope for all hum anity) that the ecclesial event serves. The b ish op’s “high priestly” behavior d isto rts the eucharistic reality o f the ecclesial event, m aking it a religious spectacle, a satisfaction for individuals to be consum ed em otionally w ithout any relation to a change in mode o f existence. (The priority o f the spectacle is so im perative th at frequently in "O rth odox” Liturgies the “high p riest” po stp o n es participation o f the faithful in the eucharistic cup until the end o f the service, so as not to interrupt the “theatrical flow” o f the ritual. C om m union is po stpon ed as if it is a secondary elem ent o f a private character.) The eucharistic event transform ed into a spectacle becom es an exclusive m atter o f the priests and high priests serving it; the laity sim ply follow it passively as consum ers. In religionized w orship the

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

105

laity are not n eeded for the perform ance o f the rites. The ob jec­ tive o f the rites is not so that the Church, the body o f a neighbor­ hood, sh ould be assem b led and m anifested. T hat is why the Rom an C atholics have ab olish ed even the nom inal presence o f a eu ch a­ ristic body a s a requirem ent for the celebration o f the Eucharist. The priest (or bish op) is perm itted to celebrate the Eucharist alone in his room , com m unicatin g h im self from that which is unshared in com m union. The “O rth odox” have n ot yet been so con sisten t a s to ad o p t this position.

3.7. The Idolization o f Tradition Tradition in ou r linguistic usage m ean s that which is handed down to us from ou r predecessors, the experience that we have inherited from the recent an d m ore rem ote p ast. Such experience is expressed in the way we lead our lives in the practices and com m on custom s we follow, in the craftsm an ship we need to produce things. It is also expressed in our m ode o f speech, in ou r scientific, literary, and ar­ tistic achievem ents, in the perceptions th at give m ean in g to life and to death, in the quotidianity o f hum an existence. Tradition preserves and tran sm its to th o se who com e after the achievem ents, assu m ptio n s, an d h ab its o f each generation— that which h as survived tem porally, that is, which has continued to interest successive generations, to correspond effectively to their needs. W hat survives and is handed on is w hat has been selected an d valued by the com m ercial ju dgm en t o f the many— not o f course by a con sciou s (intellectually developed) analysis. Tradition is defined by criteria o f evaluation im posed by need, by the practi­ cal b u sin ess o f living. If tradition, then, is o f value in itself, its value is to be located in the critical testin g by which th at which is finally handed on is se ­ lected; its value lies in the control (the selection ) exercised by com ­ m on experience on the thin gs p assed on from one generation to another. It is not so m uch an tiquity (the rem oten ess in the p ast o f its origin) that gives value to tradition as the collective critical work

106

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

o f evaluating the th in gs that tradition transm its. And the criterion is correspondence to hum an n eeds— that alone. E cclesial experien ce h as alw ays seen tradition as an accu m u latio n o f w ealth, the w ealth, to be precise, o f the experience o f previous gen eratio n s: the em pirical critical testin g o f the C h ristian go spel from one gen eration to another. In trad ition the p articip an ts in the ecclesial event d iscern w hether the gospel, the good new s o f their hopes, h as an y realistic cap ital in term s o f existen tial m ean­ ing an d perspective, or w hether it co n sists o f “cleverly devised m yth s” (2 Pet 1:16), ideological program s, and religio u s p se u d o ­ con solation s. For the Church the tradition that w as inherited from the first ecclesial com m unity and w as recorded in the texts o f the New T es­ tam en t h as always had a special value. T h is tradition con cern s the experience an d person al testim on y o f th o se who were eyew itnesses o f the historical presence o f Je su s o f N azareth—we are handing on, they declare, “w hat we have heard, w hat we have seen w ith our eyes, w hat we have looked at an d touched with our h an d s” (1 John 1:1). G od’s intervention in history, his in carn ation and resurrec­ tion, is the fou ndation and startin g poin t o f the ecclesial event. T hat is why the testim on y o f eyew itnesses o f th is intervention has been identified in peo p le’s con sciou sn ess with the foundation al truth o f the Church. It is not, however, any intention o f offering apodictic p ro o f or any m otives o f em otional priority th at endow the w itn ess o f the New T estam en t’s texts with a special value for the Church. The “o b ­ jective” evidence furnished by the “sig n s” th at accom panied the re­ velatory presence o f Jesu s C hrist is only o f m arginal interest, for the know ledge o f w hat is signified by th ese sign s is not exhausted in historical inform ation— m any who deny the gospel have subjected the inform ation supplied by the texts o f the New Testam ent to in­ tense scrutiny w ithout their denial bein g affected in the least. Knowledge o f the w itn ess o f the G ospels is an event and experi­ ence o f relation. That is why the texts o f the earliest Christian com ­ m unity are transm itted through the practice o f w orship; they are approached through the experience o f relation/participation in the

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

107

assem bly o f the ecclesial body. Naturally, in dividual/private read­ ing is not precluded, but with a con sciou sn ess o f the difference that is entailed in term s o f the power to attain know ledge o f the gospel w itness. Private reading differs, m utatis m utandis, from reading the New T estam ent “in church” a s m uch as the private study o f a m usical score differs from follow ing the sam e score when it is ac ­ com panied by participation in the sym phonic perform ance o f the work. Only the experience o f participation in the th in gs signified (and not sim ply inform ation ab o u t the events) saves the ecclesial event from its alienation into a product o f ideology. Only this a d ­ equately guaran tees a proper understanding, not a m isinterpreta­ tion, o f the texts. For the Church the w itn ess o f the New T estam ent is tradition with a special value an d m eaning, m anifestly becau se it tran sm its to succeedin g generations, with the clarity o f experiential im m ediacy, the historical facts that are the foundation o f the ecclesial event. But there is also a second reason. The Church’s w itn ess is tradition b ecau se it con stitutes the suprem e legacy that changes in a radi­ cal way the mode o f the m etaphysical quest. It presu p p o ses (and defines) know ledge not as intellectual inform ation, theoretical hy­ poth esis, or psychological conviction, but as erotic reciprocity, ac­ tive fa ith /tru st— self-surrender to relations o f loving com m union o f life and hope. In the legacy o f the New T estam ent, an approach to m etaph ys­ ics is preserved that is not through thinking but through relation. T he Church’s G od is “the God o f our fathers,” a Personal O th ern ess who is confirm ed through the historical experience o f person al re­ latio n s with him in successive generations. He is not the God o f the intellectual con ception o f the First C ause, the “D ieu d es ph i­ losophies et des savants.”38 God is known only as Father, the love an d eros who is cau sal o f every existen t thing. He is know through his entry into history “in the perso n o f Je su s Christ,” to w hom w it­ n ess is borne a s Son an d W ord o f the Father “in the Spirit,” in the ecclesial event. 38. “The God of philosophers and scientists” (Blaise Pascal, Pensees, in the introductory "Le memorial").

108

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

The Church do es not claim to be an infallible religion, a com ­ bative ideology m ore effective than others, or a “higher” ethics. It conveys a proposal to participate em pirically in an effort to find m eaning in existen ce— in a hope. “Com e and see.” It sp eak s o f a struggle for fa ith , that is, for the erotic self-transcendence that con­ stitu tes knowledge. Faith is won by renouncing the d em an ds o f the ego, the d em an ds for self-sufficiency. It is won by renouncing a s ­ surances, certainty, the protective shell o f security— faith has no deon tology or su pport other than erotic reciprocity. T hat is why it always carries an im plicit risk, like any erotic love. The risk is that the difference betw een the Church and a religion m ight be lost: the difference betw een the freedom o f erotic self­ transcendence and the pleasurable illusion o f self-transcendence that is really a convenient obedience to religious authority. W hat I call religionization is above all this difficult-to-distinguish alien ­ ation o f the erotic achievem ent into an egotistic attainm ent o f se ­ curity for the self—the alienation o f tru st into subm ission, o f the priority o f experience into conform ity with given certainties, axi­ om atic principles, an d regulative stipulations. T hese d istin ction s are clear from a sem an tic point o f view but are difficult to d istin guish in practice. Indeed, they are scarcely ac ­ cessib le to con sciou s control b ecau se the real facts d isgu ise th em ­ selves and m orph into psych ologically desired illusory ap p e ar­ ances. We en tru st ourselves to tradition often w ith the illusion o f self-transcen den ce an d faith, while in reality w hat we are hun ting for through our faith /tru st is security for our egos. We think we are experien cing fidelity to tradition as a leap o f freedom from the law s o f nature, from the priority o f our self-centered will, from the self-sufficiency o f our atom ic u n d erstan d in g an d ju dgm en t. Yet we find ourselves trapped unaw ares in the defensive arm or o f the ego once again, though now with ou r m eritorious tru st in the “au th o r­ ity” o f tradition. The h u m an psyche slip s im perceptibly and very easily into the ren u n ciation o f freedom w ith a view to secu rin g objectively a gu aran tee o f atom ic “ju stificatio n ” an d “salvation.” It u ses tra­ dition as a bulw ark o f security, proclaim in g the past to be the

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

109

su prem e gu aran tee o f truth, authenticity, an d validity. Truth is detach ed from the reality o f life an d is identified w ith the letter o f the h istorical prototype o f a doctrin e, with the precise w ording o f the first form ulation s, with can o n s rooted in cu sto m — the id o l­ ization o f the p ast defin es the only “correct system o f belief,” that is, ortho-doxy. The “G enuine O rth od o x” are m eritorio u s “d efen d ­ ers,” “gu ard ian s,” “ch am p io n s” o f tradition . T h u s the m ore the ecclesial event is gradually religionized, the greater the in sisten ce on tradition as the so u rce o f C h ristian truth an d faith. C hristian truth is no longer experien ce o f particip atio n in a new m ode o f existen ce; it is not a struggle, an adven ture o f freedom , th at is only relatively (apo ph atically) signified in language, in art, or in the form o f w orship. Truth is the objective givens th at are defined as tradition : form ulation s, can on s, cu sto m ary fo rm s— th at which the individual can p o sse ss as an object, can ap p ro p riate as the d e ­ fensive arm or o f religious security. For a significant portion o f the C hristian world, the Protestant, Reformed, or Evangelical, such a source o f C hristian truth is only to be found in w ritten texts belonging to the past, sacred texts o f divine “revelation”: Holy Scripture, both the Old and the New Tes­ tam ents. For Roman Catholic and for Orthodox Christianity, the “so u rces” are two: Holy Scripture an d Holy Tradition. The latter in­ cludes m em orials o f C hristian truth and faith also in w riting— the definitions (“d o g m as”) and the canons o f ecum enical coun cils— as a prim ary and obligatory dep osit. It also includes the w ritings o f ecclesiastical au th o rs (Fathers o f the Church), the form s and texts o f liturgical worship, and the organization al structu res and c u s­ tom ary practices o f the ascetic life as a supplem en tary source o f truth o f relative validity. In all the above cases, tradition is objectified as a given truth: it con tain s the p resu p p o sitio n s that, if obeyed by individuals, a f­ ford them gu aran teed p o ssessio n o f the tru th —they can be certain they hold correct beliefs and behave in a m eritorious way. C on­ sequently, they p o sse ss the assu ran ce o f atom ic justification, o f atom ic salvation. Fidelity to tradition and a con sisten t adherence to it gu aran tees precisely that which h um an ity’s instinctive reli­ giou s need dem ands.

110

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

To p u t it m ore accurately, su ch fidelity sa tisfie s every form o f in stin ctive need for ato m ic psy ch ological security, self-co n firm a­ tion , an d arm o rin g o f the ego. For tu rn in g th e valu e o f trad itio n in to an ab so lu te is a p h en o m en on not ex h au sted in religiosity. A s a rule, it acco m p an ies every so cial an d p o litical id eo lo gy with a lo n g ish history, every long-lived in stitu tio n al stru ctu re, and even scien tific th eo ries th at have likew ise survived the p assag e o f tim e. M arxist id eo lo gy an d Freudian th eory are c lassic ex am ­ ples o f field s in w hich h ard en ed tra d itio n alist ten d en cie s have developed. We call fu n dam en talism the hardened an d com bative m an ifesta­ tion s o f insistence on tradition, usually on som e religious tradi­ tion. The English word fu n d am en tal (from the Latin fundam entum , which m ean s “foundation ”) signifies that which belon gs to the foundations, the original form, an d therefore the authentic and genuine version, o f a teaching, a theory, or a worldview. Already from the nineteenth century, group s o f P rotestan ts in the United States were proud to bear the nam e o f fun dam en talists. Fun dam en ­ talism signified an insistence, in an absolutely con sisten t manner, on the fundam ental and basic prin ciples o f the C hristian gospel. T his am bition and b oast took the form o f a social m ovem ent or current op posed to tendencies “m odern izin g” (or secularizing) Christianity, especially the C hristianity o f the heirs o f A m erica’s Puritan com m unity. It is well known that A m erican society w as originally con stituted chiefly by Puritan refugees from England who were unw illing to com prom ise their faith. T hese were the first to leave Europe a s an organized group with the dream o f turning A m erica into a new “prom ised land,” o f becom in g them selves the “new Israel o f God,” o f realizing there the “kingdom o f God.” Such am bition s were regarded as b ein g underm ined by “m od ­ ernism ,” that is, new scientific m ethods an d worldviews, historicoliterary criticism o f Holy Scripture, an d liberal social and political theories. A nd in reaction to m odernism cam e an en th usiastic “re­ turn to fundam entals,” a fanatical adherence to the teachin gs and com m an dm en ts o f Holy Scripture, o f the Bible. The basic b elief o f fu n dam en talists is in the “divine in spiration ” o f the Bible: the Bible

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

111

w as dictated to its w riters by God word for word, an d is inspired in the letter even dow n to the punctuation. Thus, relying on the Bible, fu n dam en talists p o sse ss the “ob jec­ tive” ab so lu te truth, the infallible form ulation o f the truth. A nd the truth is not ab stract theory. It con sists o f very specific com m an d­ m ents, codes o f m oral conduct, a m ost precise identification o f “go o d ” an d “evil,” and a stan dard en ablin g people to m easu re the certainty o f their individual salvation. T hanks to th is idolization o f the Bible, fun dam en talists have the unshakeable psychological cer­ tainty that they p o sse ss truth, virtue, an d eternal salvation. They take pleasure in legal definitions o f “p io u s” n arcissism , a special­ ized casu istry o f grad es o f im aginary guilt or virtue. In a fun dam en talist environm ent psychological m echan ism s develop that dress up as “sacrifice” and “self-denial” the hell o f re­ lentless anxiety ab ou t repressed desires, the fear o f com ing o f age, o f the responsibility o f freedom . They identify religion “heroically” with the fear o f “evil,” w ith the terror o f sin. And they identify virtue with repugnance for their own body. O ne w onders how it is that such a prim itive religious attitu de can coexist with advanced social achievem ents in science an d technology, or how and why “devel­ o p ed ” societies can sw allow so easily such naive dogm atic cliches, such u nsupported “evidence” for their convictions, such m isu se o f logic an d critical thought. A s an instinctive need, religiosity proves stronger than any cul­ tivation o f rational thought and scientific criteria, m ore powerful even than the im placable urge o f self-perpetuation (seeing that sexuality is so often nullified by religious need). It is the priority o f the in stinct for self-preservation that sw eeps away the dem an ds o f logic, o f critical ju dgm en t— and even o f sexual desire. It requires unshakeable certainties, m etaphysically valid beliefs safeguarded by the authority o f “divinely in spired” revelation objectified in Scripture or in Scripture and tradition. F un dam entalism is not sym ptom atic only o f Protestantism . Funda­ m en talist m ovem ents, organization s, tendencies, brotherhoods, or isolated in stances flourish in both Rom an Catholic and O rthodox Christianity. And they alm o st always arise as a reaction to m odern

112

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

trends, trends o f liberalism , secularization, an d relativism , an d also as a reaction to syncretistic attem pts to bring together different C hristian “con fession s” an d religious traditions. A typical sym ptom o f fun dam en talism in the O rthodox churches m ay be seen in the Old C alendarist schism . T his schism refers to group s o f C hristians who refused to accept the rem oval o f the Church’s cycle o f feasts from the old (and astronom ically in ad­ equate) Julian calen dar and its ad ap tation to the new (and so m e­ what m ore correct) Gregorian calendar. Sim ply on the groun ds o f the reposition in g in the calen dar o f the im m oveable feasts (the Easter festal cycle rem ains for all O rthodox dependent on the Julian calendar), the “O ld C alen d arists” refused to p articipate in the sam e eucharistic body with the “New C alendarists.” They form ed their own dioceses and parish es o f the “G enuine O rth odox” an d their own sy n o ds—they set up a separate “Church.” Naturally, w ithin a few decad es all the typical sym ptom s o f a sect appeared: a h ost o f splinter groups, social m arginalization, and a pathologically fan ati­ cal ob sessio n with m inute details o f “traditions.” O ld C alendarists, however, are absolutely convinced that the go sp el’s salvation and “eternal life” will be accorded exclusively to the very few “G enuine O rth odox” o f their own sect; all the rest— all the billions o f people o f the past, present, an d future—were created by God to be torm ented in everlasting hell. T his is a characteristic m ark o f fundam entalism , a sign o f the invincible power o f the re­ ligious instinct: logic, judgm ent, and serio u sn ess are all sacrificed in order to satisfy the need o f individuals for the certainty th at they p o sse ss salvation, their need for som eth in g to counter the fear o f death. Salvation depends exclusively and solely on the thirteen days that separate the O ld C alendarist from the New C alendarist cel­ ebration o f the sam e im m oveable feasts. In every form o f fu n dam en talism , we m eet the sam e (u lti­ m ately p ath o lo gical, either n eurotic or psych otic) “ab so lu tizatio n o f the relative, which is an in evitable con seq u en ce o f the relativization o f the ab so lu te.”39 Seco n d ary elem en ts an d in significant 39. The expression is that of Igor Caruso, Psychoanalyse und Synthese der Existenz (Freiburg: Herder-Verlag, 1952), 59: “Die Haresie ist elne Oberwertung von Teilwahrheiten und zieht zwangsmassig die Relativierung del Abnolutes mit sich.”

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

113

d etails acqu ire an im m en se im p ortan ce for in dividuals. They b e ­ com e the center o f their interest, the pivot o f th eir lives. They a s ­ su m e an ab so lu te priority, d o m in atin g th em to the p oin t o f clo u d ­ in g logical though t and ju dgm en t. T he tru e C hristian, for the fu n d am en talist, is not so m eon e w ith experien ce o f the ecclesial event, so m eon e who p articip ates in the stru ggle to attain com m u ­ nion with existen ce an d w ith life. It is so m eon e who clin gs blindly to form s an d ex p ression s th at have an ab so lu te value b ecau se they have been inherited from the p a st an d con stitu te “tradition .” The religious in stin ct d em an d s ob jectified id o ls o f certain ties, an d the easiest satisfactio n o f th is d em an d is offered by the id o lization o f tradition . The religionization o f the ecclesial event brings with it a pleth ora o f sym ptom s o f the idolization o f tradition. I am referring to idoliza­ tion in a literal sen se: the w orship o f idols, the fossilization o f the p ast in form s, expressions, and residual cu sto m s w hose significance and value are ab solu tized and raised to the statu s o f a prerequisite o f C hristian identity. In particular in the churches that today are called O rthodox, the tem ptation to idolize tradition ap p ears to have increased, per­ h aps b ecau se “orthodoxy” is u nderstood chiefly in term s o f histori­ cal authenticity, o f fidelity to the apostolic and patristic past. In such a perspective the C hristian m eaning o f orthodoxy d o es not differ from any secular use o f the w ord— for exam ple, from Freud­ ian, M arxist, or H egelian orthodoxy. The kind o f idols changes, but peo ple’s instinctive need to w orship idols, with the aim o f shoring up the ego with certainties, do es not change.40 M uch space could be devoted to an alyzin g the idolization o f e s­ sen tial elem en ts o f ecclesiastical tradition. T h ese elem en ts would include, for exam ple, the th eological testim on y that is codified in “dogm atic an d sym bolic d o cu m en ts” o f the Church, the can o n s o f the coun cils (and not only th o se) th at are arranged a s “sy stem s o f 40. See A. Reckermann, “Idol, Ido(lo)latrie,” in the Historisches Worterbuch der Philosophie, 4:188-92, where there is an interesting bibliography, mainly concerning the idoloclastic combativeness of liberal thinkers of the Enlighten­ ment euch i> Bacon, hocke, Berkeley, Shaftesbury, Hume, Kant, Herder, etc.

114

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

canon law” an d function as a legal prop su p p o rtin g tran scen den t authority, the p atristic texts that are san ctified collectively a s an authoritative (accordin g to the letter) body o f m aterial certifying the “truth,” the in stitu tio n al stru ctu res o f ecclesiastical organ iza­ tion (the pentarchy o f p atriarch s), or the form s o f w orship th at are fossilized in repetition s o f the acclam atio n s o f Byzantine em per­ ors, in petitio n s for the gran tin g “by heaven” o f m ilitary trium phs, for “victory over the barbarians,” and for the “su ppo rt o f the O r­ th odox em pire.” Instead, the reality o f idolization is revealed m ore clearly in insignificant details transform ed into criteria o f “orthodoxy” and prerequisites for salvation— precisely like adh erin g to the O ld Cal­ endar. The turning o f the significance o f such d etails into ab so lu tes very often torm en ts the clergy and the laity in “O rthodox” environ­ m ents: the details function a s a regulative dem and for “au th en tic­ ity,” a point o f departure for the exercise o f control or even terror over the m any by certain Savonarola-like gu ardian s o f tradition. The O rthodox eth o s and “spirituality” o f b ish o p s and presby­ ters are judged, for exam ple, very often by the length o f their hair and beard. It may be th at an untouched natural growth o f hair is sacralized only by a very few, but it is im posed universally as a selfevident requirem ent o f “tradition.” A beard in its natural state and not cuttin g the hair after ordination are con sidered a sign o f godli­ n ess and fidelity to Orthodoxy. T his sym ptom is encountered in m any religions and m u st be attributed to an archetypal sym bolism o f “dedication ” (the san cti­ fication o f elem ents o f the tribe). But the sym bolism , even by the m ost favorable interpretation, m anifestly no longer functions. In­ sisten ce on the m aintenance o f a dead typology m u st therefore hide other needs, n eeds that are psychological an d instinctive, perh aps the need for people to idolize the “priest,” the controller o f access to the transcen den t— in order to differentiate him em phatically from ordinary m ortals. And the differen tiation /distan cing is intensified (is signaled m ore clearly) by the special dress that accom pan ies the unshorn hair, a dress belonging to a different era and a different society, so that its preservation is justified as adherence once again to tradition.

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

115

The Persian entari, the wide-sleeved Turkish cuppe, and the Ital­ ian kalymmafchi (the former head covering o f legal officials) rem ain to this day, in European countries with a predom inantly O rthodox tradition, the everyday dress o f clerics, both m arried and celibate. Borrowed item s o f clothing that have been adopted to preserve a d is­ tinctively priestly appearance, they function a s a uniform o f som eone exercising authority— the bishop and the presbyter o f the eucharistic body clearly conform to what is required o f the external appearance o f religious functionaries. They return to what the words o f the go s­ pel condem ned in relation to the Pharisees and scribes: “Do not do as they d o . . . for they m ake their phylacteries broad and their fringes long. They love to have the place o f honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues, and to be greeted with respect in the m ar­ ketplaces, and to have people call them rabbi. But you are not to be called rabbi” (M att 23:3-8; cf. Luke 22:26). The ad d ress rabbi, however, is m ost decorous in com parison with the extrem ely flattering m odes o f ad d ress for clerics that have long been in use in “O rthodox” environm ents, preserving an idolized “Byzantine” tradition. A celibate presbyter, for exam ple, is ad ­ dressed as p an osiologiotatos (“all holy and m ost learn ed”). H is sta ­ tu s lavishes on him the m ost com plete holin ess and the deepest learning. A m arried priest is absolutely to be revered: aidesim dtatos (“m ost reverend”) or aidesim ologiotatos (“reverend and m ost learn ed”). A bishop is suprem ely beloved o f God (theophilestatos); a m etropolitan is suprem ely venerable (sebasm iotatos); an arch­ bishop is suprem ely blessed (m ak ariotato s). A patriarch, especially the patriarch o f C onstantinople, concentrates in his person the full range o f holiness: he is pan agib tatos, allow ing no further m argin linguistically for ad d ressin g God. The patriarch o f A lexandria, in the acclam ations su n g to him, is add ressed as “father o f fathers, shepherd o f shepherds, thirteenth ap o stle”! Every society d ev ise s cu sto m ary ex p ressio n s o f polite a d ­ d re ss to h on or an d flatte r its d istin g u ish ed m em b ers— in socalled Byzantium su ch form s o f a d d re ss were cultivated playfully with exception al skill. But the preserv atio n o f the sam e form s o f ad d re ss m any c en tu ries later, in so cieties accu sto m ed now to

1 16

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

m od ern c o n d itio n s o f m a ss dem o cracy an d the leveling effect o f in dividu al righ ts, provokes m u ch b ew ilderm en t— if n ot m a­ levolen t m irth. Yet th is (h ardly serio u s, or rath er clearly com ic) m an ifestatio n o f in stin ctive n arc issism is also h idden u n d er the d eco ro u s ap p e aran ce o f “trad ition .” No on e refu ses to accep t for h im se lf the e stab lish e d form s o f ad d re ss n or d o e s he dare to q u estio n th e se rio u sn e ss o f su ch form s. T h at w hich is regard ed as in co m p atib le an d u n th in k ab le w hen the ecclesial event is o p e ra ­ tive is san c tified w ith ou t ob jectio n an d im p o sed as self-eviden t w ithin the con text o f religio n ization . The elem en ts o f tradition that are idolized are not necessarily the oldest, th o se goin g b ack to the apostolic an d patristic periods. Rather, they are th o se, derivin g even from the relatively recent p ast, th at resp o n d to the n eed s o f “b io lo g ic al” religiosity— to the p sy ch ological d em a n d s o f in d iv id u als (o f b oth the laity an d the clergy). T he elab o rate fo rm s o f a d d re ss an d th e exotic d re ss o f th e clergy satisfy p e o p le ’s n eed to sacralize, b o th visibly an d in th e d istin c tio n s bestow ed on th em , th o se who con trol ac c ess to th e tran scen d en t. At the sam e tim e th is o b jectified sacralizatio n flatte rs, u n co n scio u sly b u t strikingly, th e n arc issism o f th e co n ­ tro llers— p erh ap s p ro d u cin g a su p rem e p leasu re n ot com p arab le w ith any other. If this interpretation lacks validity, m any in stances o f the id o l­ ization o f tradition rem ain w ithout explanation, although th ese a s ­ tonish u s by their extrem e naivety, their u n d isgu ised childish char­ acter, an d above all by the obvious contradiction they present to the Church’s gospel. O ne thing th at w ould rem ain inexplicable, for exam ple, a s m entioned earlier, is the rapid dissem in ation (beyond national, linguistic, and custom ary bou n daries) o f the u se o f vestm en ts and in signia (sym bols o f power) belon gin g to the Rom an em peror as the liturgical dress o f a bishop. The privilege o f th is u se w as ac ­ corded gradually (one elem ent at a tim e) by specific em perors to specific patriarchs o f C onstantinople. And it spread w ithout any check so th at today even so-called “assistan t bishops,” sim ply b ish ­ o p s in a titular sen se w ithout diocese or flock (like m ayors w ithout

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

117

a borough), serve the Liturgy in the im perial sak k o s or m andyas, bearin g the scepter (p a te ritsa ) and w earing the crown (m itra) o f a Rom an sovereign. We have the idolization o f forms, o f types, o f sym bols, o f iconographical and m usical m odels, o f form s o f adm inistration, o f hagiographical and patristic authenticity, o f confessional texts, and inevitably o f liturgical gestures. In the practice o f worship nowadays, we encoun­ ter form alized m ovem ents that function w ithout any m eaning, any explanation. They end up being used a s m agical gestures, but it is certain that any om ission o f them or suggestion that they should be abolished would be condem ned a s disrespect for tradition. Take, for exam ple, the m ovem ents that the presiden t o f the Eucharist m akes at the beginn ing o f the an aphora holding the aer (a e ra s). The aer is a light, em broidered piece o f m aterial that cov­ ered the offered (anapherom ena) gifts, the bread an d wine. The aer is taken away and ceases to cover the chalice con tainin g the wine and the paten with the bread at the tim e when the reader is recit­ ing the Creed, the Sym bol o f Faith. But alth ough its rational u se is rem oved, the aer rem ains in irrational use. It is m oved backw ard and forward above the gifts all through the Creed; then it is folded and the celebrant weaves his fingers into the fabric and m oves it w ithout any rational p u rpose aroun d an d above the gifts. T hese are unintelligible, literally m agical, gestures. H istorical stu d ies o f ecclesial w orship tell us that the aer had the necessary liturgical role o f p rotecting the offered gifts, esp e­ cially in hot regions, from the m any in sects found there— either by covering the chalice and the paten or by being used by the celebrant a s a fa n to keep the in sects away. T he necessary functional purpose b ecam e som ew hat redundant, but the gestures that accom pan ied it cam e to be idolized as an elem ent o f “tradition ” and are preserved w ithout pu rpose or reason, a s if m agical. O ne could list a fairly large num ber o f such m ovem ents and gestures, or m agical version s o f liturgical form s an d custom ary details. They are elem en ts o f the idolization o f tradition that the hum an psyche has need o f a s com forting illusions o f transcendent sign s and sym bols.

118

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

W hat we have here is a historical paradox: the ecclesial event a p ­ peared in history having a s a ch ief characteristic a m ilitant d is­ tinction from and con trast to the tradition alism th at dom inated Jew ish religious life— that op pressed the Jew ish people with “heavy burdens difficult to bear.” And imperceptibly, in the course o f cen­ turies, the ecclesial event arrived at the sam e, or even at a m ore bur­ densom e, hardening o f grim tradition alism . Perhaps the paradox poin ts to the ever-invincible power o f the in stincts o f our hum an nature, to hum anity’s prim eval need for religion— that is, to the ex­ istential prerequisite o f person al freedom th at is so vertiginous to rational thought, seein g that the freedom o f the created can only be conceived and realized a s release from the au ton om o u s existential d em an ds o f createdn ess (o f nature).

3.8. The Demonization o f Sexuality The religionization o f the ecclesial event also brings with it a fear o f sexuality. Such fear m an ifests itself as reserve, aversion, or con­ tem pt with regard to hum an ity’s sexual functioning. In religionized C hristianity sexuality con stitutes a threat: it is uncleanness, pollu­ tion, the suprem e sin. W hy is it that natural, instinctive religiosity is usually (or rather, a s a rule) h ostile to sexuality? Here too there is need for a se ­ rious study with the aid o f clinical psychology.41 Such a study would investigate and dem onstrate the real m otives, the anthropological 41. For a useful outline 1 would commend to the reader the chapter “Sexu­ ality et Morale” in Denis Vasse, Le temps du desir (Paris: Seuil, 1969), 123fF. See also Philip Sherrard, Christianity and Eros (London: SPCK, 1976); Antoine Vergote, Guilt and Desire (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988), 73-75, 131-32; Stanton L. Jones and Heather R. Hostler, “The Role o f Sexuality in Personhood,” in Judeo-Christian Perspectives on Psychology, ed. William R. Miller and Harold D. Delaney (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2005), 115-32; Celia Harding, “Introduction: Making sense of sexuality,” in Sexuality: Psychoanalytic Perspectives, ed. Celia Harding (New York: BrunnerRoutledge, 2001), 1-17; B. Z. Goldberg, The Sacred Fire: The Story o f Sex in Religion (New York: Grove Press, 1962); Edward P. Shafranske, ed., Religion and the Clinical Practice o f Psychology (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1996).

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

119

roots, o f the phenom enon. At any rate, in the case o f Christianity, it is historically fairly obvious th at elem en ts o f variou s asp ects o f a fearful hostility to sexuality were inherited originally from the Jew ­ ish religious tradition and social practice. Christianity is an ecclesial event always with the historical flesh, both social an d cultural, o f a specific lay body— it is not an ideology, dogm a, or ethics o f a theoretical character independent o f real historical situation s. The first ecclesial com m unities con­ sisted o f Palestinian Jews, not by chance, b ecau se the incarnation o f the W ord w as realized “from the Jew s” and w as prepared for by the covenant G od had m ade with his people o f Israel. The first read­ in gs an d hym ns u sed at the eucharistic assem blies o f C hristians were m essianic texts o f the H ebrew Bible (psalm s, prophecies, al­ legorized narratives). T hese sam e texts continued to nourish the Church’s poetry, hymnology, and worship, an d for the m ost part the language o f preaching, the language o f the C hristian gospel. In the O ld T estam ent the Church recognized the foreshadow ­ ing o f the revelation o f God that w as realized in Christ, w ithout ignoring the fact that th is sam e testam en t w as sim ultan eously a record o f the history o f the Jew ish people, th at is, a record o f their vicissitu des (both collective and individual), their crim es, fanatical passion s, corruption, and ferocity in b attle—a s well a s a collection o f legal precepts design ed to tam e hum an ity’s ungovernable n a­ ture. The O ld T estam ent tells the story o f G od’s relationship with his chosen people, but this relationship did not always im ply a p o si­ tive response on their part to the special calling they had accepted. It also im plied frequent disobedience, disloyalty, hard n ess o f heart, lap ses into idolatry, an d susceptibility to influences com ing from the religions o f neighboring peoples. M any such influences intrude into the Bible o f the Jews. They create a language, inevitably, o f a religious n atu re— it is not a re­ quirem ent o f every historical book th at it should also introduce a new linguistic code. Perhaps th at is why the religious proclivities (or exigencies) o f the ancient peo ples o f M esopotam ia infiltrate the texts o f the Old T estam ent: elem ents o f a prim eval feeling o f re­ pugnance toward sexuality, a fear o f its "pollution” and “unclean”

120

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

character.42 Yet parallel to this, concubinage is fully en dorsed and prostitu tion is taken for gran ted— at least in the period o f the socalled wisdom books. The legacy o f the prim eval fear o f sexuality p assed into Christi­ anity after som e con siderable delay— it is specified for the first tim e in can on s o f the seventh century. The can on s appear to reflect an excessive respect for the O ld Testam ent, alth ough the Church had taken the O ld T estam ent only a s a foreshadow ing and preparation for the historical advent o f Christ. T his excessive respect is perh aps the m ost likely explanation for how elem ents o f the Jew ish tradi­ tion cam e to survive in the practice o f ecclesial life, elem ents such as regarding the loving union o f a m an w ith a w om an as a pollu­ tion, o f con siderin g a w om an as unclean after she has given birth or durin g the days o f her m onthly period, and sim ilarly with regard to m en if they have had even an involuntary ejaculation 43

42. See Friedrich Hauck, “Akathartos, akatharsia,” in the Theological Dic­ tionary o f the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1966-76), 3:427-31; Friedrich Hauck and Sieg­ fried Schulz, “Porne, pornos, porneia, porneuo, ekporneuo” etc., in Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament, 6:579-95. On the sexual urge, see the entry for marriage in Leon-Dufour, ed., Dictionary o f Biblical Theology, 294-96. In his work The Slave, the contemporary Jewish novelist Isaac Bashevis Singer (Nobel Prize for Literature, 1978) describes the laws of the Torah on women during the days of their monthly periods as follows: “He [Jacob, the main hero o f the novel] had warned her [Sarah, his Gentile wife] many times about the unclean days, reminding her that when she was m enstruating she could not sit on the same bench with him, take any object from his hand, nor even eat at the sam e table unless there was a screen between her plate and his. He was not allowed to sit on her bed, nor she on his; not even the headboards of their beds ought to touch at this time” (Bashevis Singer, The Slave, 158). 43. Obligatory abstention from the conjugal act on Saturdays and Sundays: Canon 13 o f Timothy of Alexandria. Obligatory abstention from the conjugal act for at least three days before Holy Communion: Canon 5 of Timothy o f Al­ exandria. A m enstruating woman shall not receive Holy Communion but shall pray on her own in the church’s narthex: Canon 2 o f Dionysius of Alexandria and Canon 7 o f Timothy o f Alexandria. A menstruating woman shall not receive Holy Communion and her husband shall not have marital relations with her, but if she ignores this rule and approaches to receive Holy Communion the penalty imposed on her is not to receive Holy Communion for forty days; on a woman who has given birth not entering the bedroom while her baptized infant is lying there: Canon 38 o f Nicephorus the Confessor. He who has been polluted during sleep by the passion o f secretion is excluded from communion for one day; if he

The R e ligionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

121

The attitu de o f the New Testam ent to sexuality also calls for care­ ful herm eneutical attention. H ere we are d ealin g with texts— not with theoretical ideological declarations but with testim on ies to the experience o f a particular (historically and culturally) ecclesial community. T his w as a com m unity necessarily em b edd ed in the language and ou tlook o f the broader social environm ent, a specific historical tim e and geographical place. In spite o f all this, in the texts o f the G ospels there is not the slightest hint giving u s groun ds for su p p o sin g a fear or depreciation o f sexuality or repugnance toward it. Even when the d isciples re­ m arked that perh aps it is better not to m arry in view o f the difficul­ ties o f rem aining faithful to a m on ogam ou s relationship, C hrist’s reply w as clearly cautious. He speaks o f those who are deprived by nature o f the power to enter into sexual relations and distin guish es them from th ose w hose privation is im posed socially (through an external cau se). And he d istin guish es both o f these cases from the possibility o f achieving ascetical freedom , the release from n atu ­ ral necessity, with the sole aim o f attain in g the fullness o f loving self-transcendence and self-offering— “in the im age” o f the Triadic M odel that the Church always keeps before it (cf. M att 19:2-12). The m aterial in the w ritings o f the A postle Paul is m ore extensive. There we encounter both a very clear perspective on the new mode o f existence that the Church proclaim s and also som e reiteration o f the prevailing language (and consequently on the perceptions) o f the natural religion o f his ag e— chiefly when he dictates principles o f sexual behavior to his Christian contem poraries. Paul’s perspective on the new mode o f existence, in relation to sexuality, is very clear when he proclaim s the transcendence o f the difference between the sexes in C hrist Jesu s: “There is no longer m ale and fem ale” (Gal 3:28). It is also very clear w hen he seeks an absolu te equality betw een m en and w om en scarcely conceivable in the social and cultural environm ent o f his tim e: “The husband sh ould give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likew ise the wife to her husband. For the wife d o es not have authority over her own sings the fiftieth psalm and makes forty-nine prostrations, it is believed that this cleanses the pollution: Canon 6 o f John the Faster.

122

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

body, but the h u sban d does; likewise the h u sban d do es not have authority over his own body, but the wife d o es” (1 Cor 7:3-4). And it is very clear w hen he advises m arried couples not to deprive each other o f the joy and pleasu re o f sex. And th is is not so th at they m ight rem ain su b ject to the natural n ecessity o f reproduction but only for the sake o f their own relationship— except when the two o f th em agree on a tem porary period o f abstinence for the pu rpose o f practicing asceticism , a trial o f freedom from natural necessity (cf. 1 Cor 7:5). A nd th e ecclesial perspective on relatio n s betw een m en and w om en reach es its clim ax in Paul with the fam o u s p assag e in h is E pistle to the E ph esian s w here he see s in the loving union o f a m an an d a w om an an d in the “sh arin g o f th e w hole o f life” the im ­ age o f C h rist’s relation w ith the Church, an im age th at is not m et­ aph orical or intellectually allegorized b u t is an im ag e/m an ifesta­ tion o f the pow er o f h u m an b ein gs to realize the in carn ate Son ’s vital relation sh ip w ith h um an ity (vital in th at it is the provider o f un lim ited life) as an existen tial event through th eir p sy ch o so ­ m atic created nature. T h is is a pow er th at defin es th at w hich the Church calls a m ystery— th at w hich sh arply d istin g u ish es eccle­ sial m arriage from the n atu ral/so c ial/le g al in stitu tio n o f m arriage (cf. Eph 5:21-33). W ithin the con text o f th e m utually self-tran scen den t rela­ tion sh ip o f h u sb an d and wife, Paul req u ires o f the wife th at sh e sh ou ld actively cultivate respect for her h u sb an d, sh ou ld be su b ­ ject to her h u sb an d “in everything,” as the C hurch is to C hrist. He a sk s correspon din gly from h u sb an d s th at they sh ou ld love their w ives “a s they do th eir own b o d ies” an d m uch m ore so, “ju st as C hrist loved the church an d gave h im se lf up for her.” T h ese d e ­ m an d s do n ot con stitu te regulative p rin cip les o f so cial behavior; they are the term s o f the tran sform ation o f the natural in stitu tio n into an ecclesial mystery, into a stru ggle to renounce the egotistic will, a stru ggle o f realistic self-tran scen den ce an d self-offering. It is only in term s o f m ystery (the ecclesial m ode o f existence) that th ese d em an d s can be ju dged, not accordin g to the stan d ard s o f “the righ ts o f the individual,” the stan d ard s o f m odern m ass d em ­ ocratic individualism .

The R e ligionization of the Ecclesial Event; The Sy m p to m s

123

We encounter elem ents o f the A postle Paul’s being tied to the lan ­ guage and attitu d es belonging to his own era (and determ ined for the m ost part by natural religiosity) when he is dealin g with social m atters then taken for granted, alon g with the rules regulating life that these entailed. He in stru cts the Greek C hristians o f Corinth, for exam ple: “A s in all the churches o f the saints, w om en should be silent in the churches. For they are not perm itted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also say s” (1 Cor 14:34). Paul, who describes the law as a “curse” (Gal 3:10,13-14), and fights again st it as the suprem e oppon en t o f the Church’s gospel, now invokes it as a rule o f con duct for C hristians at their eucharistic assem blies. A sim ilar attitu de is reflected in his insistence that “any w om an who prays or proph esies with her head unveiled d isgraces her h ead ” (1 Cor 11:5). He ju stifies his dem and by argu m en ts that draw on a s ­ su m ption s th at at that tim e were taken for granted by everyone. W hat we sh ould infer is that, for Paul, his role (and that o f the Church) w as not to dem and social chan ges aim ed at secu ring the equality o f the sexes but to show that the (then) estab lish ed so ­ cial practice, outlook, and an th ropological perspective could serve the passage from nature to relation that con stitutes the Church. (It is, however, very doubtful i f the sam e inference could usefully be m ade with regard to the equality o f the sexes in the m odern indi­ vidualistic culture prevailing today.) There is also Paul’s clearly expressed preference for the celibate life,44 which can be interpreted in various ways: as a sen se o f re­ serve, depreciation, and con tem pt with regard to sexuality, or as a search for the fullest po ssib le liberation from the natural laws that govern hum an nature. Paul h im self does not clarify his prefer­ ence analytically, but neither can there be discerned in w hat he says any d isposition or hint o f a dep reciation o f the fem ale sex— there is nothing in them that w ould allow u s to attribute to Paul a dem onization o f w om en and o f sexuality. Certainly (and indisputably) he sp eak s the language o f the patriarchal society o f his own tim e and o f a religious tradition, the Jewish, form ed through centuries o f 44. 1 Cor 7:1 -2, 7: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband . . . I wish that all were as I myself am."

124

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

m ale dom inance. D espite all this, he attem pts to graft onto such a language and ou tlook an elem entary on tological realism .45 H is rem arks ab ou t prostitu tes and prostitu tion also ap p ear to be socially determ ined. In the G ospels this preju dgm en t is m ore circum spect an d in d ire c t46 In Paul it m an ifests itse lf with greater clarity: “Do you not know th at your bod ies are m em bers o f Christ? Should I therefore take the m em bers o f Christ and m ake them m em bers o f a prostitu te? N ever!” (1 Cor 6:15). Evidently, a p ro s­ titute is regarded a s polluted and polluting, to be identified with sin. T hus fornication an d the Lord are placed at op posite poles, in ab so lu te con trast an d distinction .47 Paul d o es not explain why “the fornicator sin s again st the body itse lf” (1 Cor 6:18); he d o es not dem onstrate th at fornication signifies subjection to nature’s individualism , to the natural need for pleasure, that fornication excludes relation. He regards the sinful and dan gerou s nature o f fornication as socially obvious and self-explanatory, an d m akes no attem pt to connect w hat he w rites to the C orinthians ab ou t forni­ cation with w hat he w rites to the Rom ans ab ou t living “according to the flesh” (Rom 8:12). In the end Paul arrives at ju stifying the natural in stitution o f m arriage (not the ecclesial perspective o f m ale-fem ale relations) only on the groun ds o f avoiding fornication.48 Parallel to this, how­ ever, on e m ay discern two indirect su gg estio n s th at the natural sexual instinct can cooperate with the goal o f hum an salvation (the goal that hum an bein gs m ay be saved, m ay becom e sound or whole, with their existential pow ers fully integrated). The first hint con­ cerns the m an who is helped by the natural in stitution o f m arriage to “leave his father an d m oth er” (Eph 5:31), to break away from the ego-b oostin g assuran ce o f their protection, so a s to dare to take the risk o f attain in g adulth ood. A nd he d o es th is by being “joined to his 45. 1 Cor 11:11-12: “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God.” 46. Cf. “When this son o f yours cam e back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes” (Luke 15:30); “He would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him” (Luke 7:39). 47. “The body is not meant for fornication but for the Lord” (1 Cor 6:13). 48. 1 Cor 7:1-2; see also n. 44.

The R e ligionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sym p to m s

125

wife” (Eph 5:31), sh aring his body with her, his physical individual­ ity that is identified with his biological ego. T he seco n d hint con cern s the w om an who “will be saved th rou gh ch ild b earin g” (1 T im 2:15). T he n atu ral fu n ction o f m oth erh oo d h elp s the w om an too to sh are her bein g, her own body, to com m u n icate her bodily individuality, th rou gh the selfd en ial an d self-o fferin g th at m oth erh oo d en tails. Both o f the h in ts we find in Paul refer to p o te n tialities th at are ch aracteristic o f the generative fun ction, not to regu lative p recep ts th at P au l’s “eth ics” w an ts to im p o se on n atu re. It is precisely th is m isu n d er­ stan d in g th at h a s cau sed (an d still c au se s) m uch in h u m an ity— h a s torm en ted (an d still to rm en ts) gen eratio n s o f h u m an b ein gs over m any centu ries. I have dw elt on the texts o f the A postle Paul because, when the ecclesial event is religionized, it is th ese texts th at are idolized and proclaim ed (not only by P rotestants) to be divinely inspired down to the letter. Even their circum stantial, historically conditioned ele­ m en ts are treated as obligatory regulative principles for C hristians o f every era. W henever an d wherever C hristianity has been religionized, it h as seen in Paul’s texts an approval o f the fear, the depreciation, the repulsiveness o f sexuality. A nd it h as built on to such inspired “a p ­ proval” the dem onization o f sexuality as a self-evident elem ent o f Christian identity (and authenticity). Thus, at least in com m unities that share in m odernity’s values, it seem s to be taken for granted that C hristians identify sexuality with sin, “evil,” uncleanness, p o l­ lution —an d often with the “fall”—that they dem onize sexuality with a (literally) neurotic o b session , that they are constantly preoc­ cupied w ith it a s an alarm ing threat o f pollution. Everyday experience ten d s to confirm this w idely held convic­ tion. The dem onization o f sexuality m an ifests itse lf a s a universal fact, an obligatory con com itant o f the C hristian conscience in ev­ ery tradition an d “confession.” Certainly, it becom es particularly evident in fun dam en talist circles— in zealous group s (or sects) o f pu ritans and pietists in the P rotestant world, in the sm all num ber o f conservative Roman C atholics still obedien t to the Vatican line,

126

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

and in the various m an ifestation s o f the “Genuine O rthodox.” In each o f th ese cases, an d also in the broader “con fession al” tradi­ tion, there is abu n dan t m aterial fo r a study o f the psychopathology defined by the sym ptom s o f the dem onization o f sexuality th at has so torm ented humanity. A telling exam ple is provided by the occurrence o f such sym p­ tom s in the area o f so-called “O rth odox” ecclesial life. T hese sy m p­ tom s illustrate the dynam ics o f religionization very powerfully, con­ sidering that O rthodox ecclesial life w as clearly the field in which resistan ce to the alienation o f the prim itive Christian tradition was at its strongest. There m ust be a very large num ber o f m arried O rthodox Christians who willingly endeavor to live according to the mode o f ecclesial struggle, and yet are torm ented sadistically and inhum anely by “p asto ral” con fessors governed by the dem onization o f sexuality. C hristians have been excluded for d ecad es on end from p articipa­ tion in the eucharistic body o f the Church, and th is exclusion has been im posed on them as an im placable penalty. They have been burdened with frightening guilt, with panic ab ou t the dread ju d g ­ m ent that com es after death, an d with accu sation s o f betrayal o f the faith and contem pt for the “law o f God.” And all this is not because these specific m arried Christians have neglected, or have refused, to love the other in the m arital joint struggle “as their own body,” not because they forget the aim that their love should be an im age o f the relationship between Christ and the Church— not because o f anything like that. They are excluded for decades from the Eucharist only because they have avoided subject­ ing them selves to nature’s blind and auton om ous need for self-per­ petuation. The first question the confessor puts to m arried people concerns how many years have they been m arried and how many children they have. If the figures are disproportionate, if they betray conjugal acts that did not result in conception, the “guilty” parties are excluded from eucharistic participation in the ecclesial body. W hat we have here is an understanding o f the Christian life with the conditions o f the Church’s gospel entirely reversed. The Church

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

127

proclaim s that “the conditions o f nature have been conquered,” that the subjection o f being to the necessities o f nature, necessities that pursue their own independent goal, has com e to an end. Now being is defined not by nature but by relation, by the infinite freedom o f love. The “O rthodox” confessor, however, has another gospel: m ar­ riage is not a mystery, a gift and struggle to realize the ecclesial mode o f existence o f a kind that is not subject to linguistic determ inations; it is not an im aging by the husband and wife o f the relation between Christ and the Church. M arriage is a religious legitim ization o f sexual relations, and because this accursed pleasure is legitim ized, there is a price that has to be paid for it (a price dem anded by an instinctive, zealous psychological sadism ). And the price is that the pleasure m ust be curbed by childbearing— or, to be thoroughly con­ sistent, that the pleasure deriving from sexual relations should be erased and that such relations should be restricted program m atically to a pleasureless m echanistic fertilization o f the fem ale by the male. “O rth odox” con fessors have actually boasted o f “spiritual chil­ dren” with im pressively large fam ilies but who have nevertheless never seen each other naked or allowed them selves to offer their “erotic” com panion any caress or occasion o f physical pleasure. Even the m ost fanatical n aturalist w ould have found it near im p o s­ sible to idolize the im personal reproductive instinct m ore fully, to obliterate personal relations, the bodily expression o f loving reci­ procity, m ore thoroughly for the sake o f a biological goal. For a “pastoral” outlook and practice o f this kind, only the aim o f conception justifies the sexual act between spouses. The sexual act in itself never in any circum stances ceases to be dishonorable, unclean, polluting, and dem onic. That is why, as already m entioned, participation in the cup o f the Eucharist is canonically forbidden if the sexual union o f the sp o u ses has occurred the previous night. There are, o f course, ecclesiastical canons that excom m unicate, cut o ff from the body o f the Church, those who “regard m arriage as loathsom e,” or those who refuse to accept the bread and wine o f the Eucharist “from the hands o f a m arried presbyter.” At the sam e time, however, there are prayers “for forty days after childbirth” that are read over the new m other by the president o f the O rthodox ecclesial assem bly and that wound, insult, and denigrate the woman

128

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

in a crude m anner as “polluted” and “unclean” only because her body h as served the function o f m otherhood. That the function o f m otherhood constitutes uncleanness is con­ firm ed not only by the prayers that are read over a m other after childbirth, not only by exclusion o f women from participation in the Eucharist (or even entering the Church) when they are m enstruating, but also by the constant repetition in the Church’s hymnology that the Virgin M other o f God “rem ained a virgin even after giving birth,” that she is ever-virgin, that “her giving birth did not destroy the Vir­ gin’s keys,” did not dissolve her physical (anatom ical) virginity. Psychologically healthy C hristians u n derstan d th at the incar­ n ation /birth o f the Son an d W ord o f God the Father from a virgin m other m an ifests victory over or freedom from the con ditions o f nature (“The con ditions o f nature have been overcom e in you, O sp o tless Virgin”). They u n derstan d the Son’s assu m ptio n o f hu ­ m an nature as an event o f ab solu te freedom from the n ecessities/ preprogram m ing o f createdn ess. But they do not u n derstan d w hat precisely can be add ed to th is w onder: a created w om an gives birth to the u ncreated— “he who is uncontain able by anything” is con­ tain ed “in a womb,” “he who is in the b o so m o f the Father” becom es an infant “in the arm s o f a m oth er”; they d o not u n d erstan d w hat m ore su blim e truth is secured by the preservation o f the an atom i­ cal virginity o f the T heotokos even after giving birth.49 49. How else should we interpret the phrase in the Church’s hymnology ho metran oikesas aeiparthenon than “who dwelt in a womb unpolluted by moth­ erhood”? Fr. Georges Florovsky writes, “She [the Virgin Mother] was not just a ‘channel’ through which the Heavenly Lord has come, but truly the mother o f whom he took his humanity . . . Motherhood, in general, is by no m eans ex­ hausted by the mere fact o f a physical procreation. . . In fact, procreation itself establishes an intimate spiritual relation between the mother and the child. This relation is unique and reciprocal, and its essence is affection or love. . . nor could Jesus fail to be truly human in his filial response to the motherly affection o f the one o f whom he was b o rn . . . The title o f Ever-Virgin m eans surely much more than merely a ‘physiological’ statement. It does not imply only an exclusion of any later marital intercourse . . . It excludes first o f all any ‘erotic’ involvement, any sensual and selfish desires or passions, any dissipation o f the heart and mind . . . The main point is precisely the purity o f the heart, that indispensable condi­ tion o f ‘seeing God’” (Georges Florovsky, Creation and Redemption, vol. 3 o f The Collected Works o f Georges Florovsky [Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1976], 175,

176, 179,184).

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: The Sy m p to m s

129

Rather, we should su p p o se that a religionized piety is not in­ terested in celebratin g a w om an who has been found worthy to b e­ com e the m oth er o f God. It is not affected by doxologies ab ou t the w onder o f supern atural m otherhood. It w ants to w orship virgin­ ity, that alone, the exclusion o f sexuality from life. In the end the religious person w ants unconsciously to idolize his own neurotic eunuchism , his repressed but agon izin g sexual privation. A nother striking exam ple o f the dem onization o f sexuality within the “O rth odox” churches is the prohibition o f a second m arriage for clergy who have becom e w idow ers after their ordination. They had chosen the m arried life and had not thought to follow the path o f m on asticism . But it so happened that death deprived them o f their life com panion. Any m em ber o f the Church in such a situ ation can proceed to a second m arriage, but not a cleric. Priests and deacons who becom e widow ers are obliged to live the rest o f their lives in an involuntary celibacy that they have not chosen and do not want. That th is prohibition sprin gs from a depreciatory view o f m ar­ riage is fairly obvious: “it is perm itted” th at there sh ould be m ar­ riage before ordination, but w hen the “office” o f “p riesth oo d ” h as been conferred, the approval o f a second m arriage would contradict the “con cession ” th at sexual activity could coexist with the “an gelic” priestly function. The m arriage o f an already ordained m an would acknow ledge sexuality not as a secon dary elem ent at th e m argins o f the priestly life. It w ould give it a prim ary significance in life an d in the struggle for erotic self-denial. Moreover, it ap p ears to be not at all fortuitous that in the cur­ rent practice o f the “O rth odox” churches a m arried presbyter can be ordained a bish op after som e years o f w idow erhood. T his im ­ plies that avoidance o f the distraction o f fam ily respon sibilities w as not the m otive for estab lish in g the obligatory celibacy o f bishops. The m otive w as a depreciatory reserve, a predisposition to regard sexuality as “uncleanness.” T hat is why som e years o f “purification” from an active sexual life are required before the “pollu ted” m arried p riest can be acceptable for episcopal office.

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

Chapter 4

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

4.1. The Judaizers The dem and that the ecclesial event should be brought into line with hum anity’s instinctive need for religion is already apparen t in the very first days o f the Church’s historical life. In the A cts o f the A postles, we read ab ou t the first test o f the cohesion an d unity o f the newly con stituted ecclesial com m unity o f Jerusalem . It began w ith objection s m ade again st the A postle Peter’s “perm issiven ess” in associatin g with “uncircum cised m en” an d eatin g with them (Acts 11:3)— an act th at the Jew ish law explic­ itly prohibited. T hese objection s cam e to a head when the num ber o f Gentiles (form er p agan s) who joined the Church in creased very noticeably w ithout their bein g required also to obey the rules o f the Jew ish religion. The objectors were C hristians o f Jew ish descent, particularly those who cam e from the conservative religious group o f the Phari­ sees. They were teachin g C hristians o f G entile origin th at there w as no salvation for them solely through participation in the Church. They n eeded at least to su bm it to the circum cision th at the Jewish religion required and to observe the M osaic law (A cts 15:1, 5). T hese C hristians were labeled Ju daizers, and it is clear th at they understood the ecclesial event as a repristin ation or creative tran s­ form ation o f the Jewish religion. They saw that the ecclesial event

130

131

on its own did not have the form al m arks o f a religion and did not even aim at acquiring them . The Ju daizin g C hristians them selves, however, n eeded a religion—they n eeded a law and visible m arks to distin guish them , such a s circum cision. It w as therefore im possible for them to accept a C hristianity free from the rules o f the Jewish religion; they were not interested in the Church if it w as an event o f a different order from that o f natural religiosity. T his first dem an d for the religionization o f the Church also func­ tioned in an archetypical fashion: it served a s a m odel for, or en cap ­ sulated, all the later d em an ds o f a sim ilar kind, w hether m anifest or hidden, successful or unsuccessful. All the d em an d s o f a sim ilar kind, from the Ju d aizers to the presen t day, have the sam e m otivation: the ab so lu te priority they give to individual salvation. It is fairly evident th at they u n d er­ stan d salvation as a gu aran tee to the individual (valid in th is world an d the next). They con stru ct the idea o f salvation from objective term s w hose fulfillm ent can be m easured, certified, an d evaluated w ithout any m argin for doubt, namely, the obedien ce o f the in di­ vidual to a law o f ab so lu te validity, to the codified precepts that ob jectify th is law, to specific ritual practices, to objectified form s o f religiosity. A nd they take p articipatio n in the ecclesial event to be an add ition al token of, or help tow ard, the gain in g o f personal m erit, su p p lem en tin g all th at a con sisten t religiosity gu aran tees to the individual. For the prim itive Church this w as a challenge that necessitated a response, for it touched on its very identity, on w hat precisely w as distinctive ab ou t its gospel. Accordingly, a council w as called for the first tim e, a council that w as later called apostolic. T he A cts o f the A postles says that “the ap o stles and the elders m et together to con sider th is m atter” (15:6). And “after there had been m uch d eb ate” (15:7)—w ithout the argu m en ts that were presented on either side or the objectives that were clarified having com e dow n to u s— a decision w as reached unanim ously and expressed confidently with com plete assuran ce with regard to its correctness: “It has seem ed good to the Holy Spirit

A

132

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

and to u s” (15:28). T h is “to u s” included the whole o f the Church: apostles, presbyters, and brethren. T hat is why it w as held to be certain that the council m an ifested G od’s Holy Spirit, the Church’s Paraclete, for when the ecclesial body is o f one m ind it m an ifests its unity as its truth, as a mode o f existence, that is, as a g race/gift o f the Paraclete. The decision freed C hristians from the obligation o f accepting circum cision and observin g the M osaic law. It required them only to “ab stain from w hat h as been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from w hat is strangled and from fornication” (A cts 15:29), with a view to m aking the difference betw een C hristians an d pagan s so ­ cially discernible. T hus from the very first days o f the Church’s life, the ecclesial event’s independence from the Jewish religious tra­ dition, its difference from natural religion, w as m arked o ff by the decision o f the A postolic Council. The difference w as m arked, o ff but the dem and for religioniza­ tion w as not erased. Until the end o f his life, Paul continued to fight again st the persistent view that insisted on laying claim to atom ic salvation through observation o f the law an d obedience to com m an dm en ts. He attem pted to prove that even in the Jew­ ish tradition the law w as not a m ean s o f salvation but a m ean s o f instruction, a practical way for the Jew to dem on strate his will and desire to belong to the people chosen by G od— the people chosen to be an im age o f the relationship o f God with the w hole o f hum an ­ ity. Even for Paul, the Jew s still had a historical relationship with God, not a natural religion. They had a covenant (an agreem ent/ contract) with him that w as founded on A braham ’s faith /tru st in G od and w as confirm ed by the recording o f ru les/requirem en ts governing the Jew s’ practical fidelity to the covenant by M oses on M ount Sinai.30 But even the m ost consistent practical fidelity to the term s o f the covenant has no existential con sequen ces for hum anity. It sim ply prefigures and prepares in advance that which the Church proclaim s a s a “new creation” with Christ. By the in carnation o f

50. Rom 9:4-8; Gal 3:6-22.

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

133

the Son o f God and Word o f the Father, hum an ity’s created and m ortal nature (our m ode o f existence) is taken up into the mode by which the uncreated and im m ortal God exists: hum an nature is freed from the existential lim itations o f createdn ess.51 No fidelity to any law can su b stitute for the existential tran s­ form ation that w as accom plished for hum anity by the incarnation o f the Word. Only faith , which is tru st and loving self-surrender (as a m ode o f existence that con stitutes the ecclesial event), is proclaim ed by Paul a s having the necessary and sufficient power to enable u s to participate in such freedom from n ecessity and confinem ent.52 The Ju daizers were not sim ply a tem porary hiccup at the beginning o f the Church’s historical life. “Ju d aizin g” w as and has always re­ m ained the con stan t tem ptation o f religionization th at lies in wait at every m om ent and in every asp ect o f ecclesial life. The histori­ cal facts force us to accept that the dem an ds for religionization are interwoven inextricably with the ecclesial event, ju st as the “w h eat” and the “w eeds” “grow togeth er” in the sam e field. Even C hrist’s w ords confirm that any effort to pull out the w eeds from the field is unprofitable, for the attem pt to distinguish them is pointless and risky: “For in gath ering the w eeds you would uproot the w heat alon g with th em ” (M att 13:29). The real separation o f the ecclesial event from its religioniza­ tion em erges from these w ords o f Christ only as an eschatological expectation: “Let both o f them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest tim e I will tell the reapers, ‘Collect the w eeds first and bind them in bu n dles to be burned, but gather the w heat into my b arn’” (M att 13:30). Eschatological expectation, however, does not erase or dim inish the need for C hristians to be vigilant abou t distinguishin g (so far a s possible) the Church from a natural religion. T his is not so as to preserve som e kind o f ideological orthodoxy and objective (idol-

51. Rom 8:12-21; Gal 5:1-6. 52. Rom 5:1-11; Gal 3:16-22.

134

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

ized) “authen ticity” but only so a s to in sist on the realism o f the hope o f the go spel— a universally hum an hope. R eligionization ap p ears to be interwoven, very often in a m an ­ ner difficult to distinguish, w ith ecclesial thinking, even in the w orks o f the Fathers an d teachers o f the Church, in hym nology and m ore widely in w orship generally, in the way the adm inistrative in­ stitu tio n s function, in ascetical practice, an d in popu lar piety. And a s a rule it perpetu ates the characteristic m arks o f the dem an ds first projected on to the ecclesial life by the Ju daizers: the need for law (i.e., codified rules, degrees o f guilt, and the laying down o f pen al­ ties for the “redeem ing” o f individual “righ teou sn ess”), the need for external form s that can objectify in a perceptible way (like circum ­ cision) the fact that the individual belongs to the Christian collec­ tivity, and the need for reining in sexual pleasure, a need expressed aggressively by circum cision. The interw eaving o f religionization with ecclesial thinking b e ­ com es clearly discernible chiefly from the end o f the seventh century, when, as already m entioned, the Q uinisext Ecum enical Council form alized the universal im position o f “can o n s” regulating the person al life o f C hristians. The problem d o es not rest w ith the absurdly grim m oralism o f som e can o n s— in accordance with w hat th ese can on s lay down, stipu latio n s that have naturally rem ained in force to the present day, alm o st all C hristians on earth are su bject to excom m unica­ tion. T he m ore seriou s problem is the confusion created around the concept o f sin. Sin, as assu m ed by those can on s governed by a religious outlook, h as no relation to the failu re o f hum an bein gs to graft them selves onto the eucharistic eth o s o f the Church, their existential m issing the mark. Sin is not an opportunity to surrender o n ese lf to grace, an occasion for the trium ph o f G od’s love, for the m an ifestation o f the Church as the m ystery o f the cross and resur­ rection. Sin is the tran sgression o f a law, an objective infringem ent. It com es under a precept that an ticip ates it in precise detail and pu n ish es it with a predeterm ined penalty. The very term canon law (a system atically arranged body o f regulative legal precepts covering in a detailed

fashion the broadest

The R eligionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

135

range o f transgressive behavior) reveals how the p resu pp o sitio n s o f the ecclesial event have been turned on their head. The canons referring to the life o f individual believers and their system atic ar­ rangem ent confirm the fact that religionization has accom panied ecclesial life from the tim e o f the Ju daizers m entioned in the New T estam ent to the present day. Law and circum cision were w hat the Ju daizers dem anded. A legal system o f regulative precepts and, through the canons, an aggressive reining in o f sexual pleasure are what the in stitutionalized religionization o f their su ccessors offers. The alienation o f both the eucharistic eth os and the ascetical stru g­ gle into a m oralism centered on the individual alon g codified lines ap pears to be a sym ptom that is not accidental or coincidental. It is the perm an en t tem ptation to m ake the ecclesial event subject to the religious in stincts o f hum an nature. This began in apostolic tim es an d has endured now for twenty centuries.

4.2. Religio Imperii The religionization o f the ecclesial event m u st also be due, to a large extent, to the geograph ical spread o f the C hristian presence in the Rom an world and the in crease in the C hristian population. W hen the m ajority o f the po p u latio n had been converted to C h ris­ tianity, the political realism o f the im perial adm in istration n atu ­ rally led to the recognition o f C hristianity as the official religion (religio im perii) o f the Rom an Em pire. W ith the assu m p tio n s prevailing today ab ou t the m odern “n a­ tion state,” it is difficult for u s to u n d erstan d the role o f religion in the way the Rom an imperium fun ctioned on the political level. The Rom an Em pire w as on e o f the first po lities in history con sistin g o f an agglom eration o f m any n ation alities an d races w ith a variety o f lan gu ages an d religions. It m an aged to achieve adm inistrative coh esion an d political unity an d m ain tain it for m any centuries (from abou t the third century BC to the fifteenth century AD) than ks to certain fun dam en tal c o n stan ts o f its political and ad ­

ministrative system.

136

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

T hese con stan ts prom otin g unity spran g from a kind o f p ro­ gram m atic transcendence o f am bition s centered exclusively on the extension o f power or world dom inance. The Rom an Em pire always aim ed at bein g som eth in g other than an authoritarian form o f d o ­ m inion over peoples. It w anted to con stitute an order o f things (an ordo rerum ) on an international level, to play a leadin g role in en­ su ring the harm onious coexistence o f peoples, to estab lish peace betw een them (the p a x Rom ana). The con stan ts th at served th is aim were: (1) the prestige o f im ­ perial authority allied with a consistent adm inistrative decen tral­ ization; (2) (the com m on) Rom an law allied with the independence o f local courts; and (3) the im perial religion (religio imperii), which w as com m on to all peo ples and w as add ed to the religious beliefs, traditions, and practices existin g am on g each o f them . T he Rom an governm ent w as not interested, positively or negatively, in the religions o f the different peo ples m aking up the em pire. It only dem anded, as a sign o f law -abiding respect for authority, the rendering o f addition al w orship to the go ds o f Rome, an d naturally to the em peror. By th is com m on w orship the governm ent ensured a powerful bond binding all its su b jects together, the cohesion o f the various different com m unities, an d consequently the political unity o f the em pire. In the person o f the em peror, the R om ans projected the m aster an d guaran tor o f global order and peace, the deliverer o f the su b ­ ject peoples from w ars am o n g them selves, from penury and misery. They projected in the em peror the incarnate im age o f the “ancestral Zeus" and the “new H elios”— a kind o f the indwelling o f divinity in a m ortal hum an being (a kind o f “an th ropoth eistic theanthropism ,” as the stu den ts o f com parative religion call it), an am algam o f H ellenistic and Z oroastrian influences. Religion in the Roman Em pire, th an ks to obvious influences from A ncient Greece, ap pears to have functioned chiefly sym boli­ cally an d iconologically as a herm eneutic key to u n derstan din g the world and hum an history. In th ese circum stan ces religion, p re­ cisely as an assim ilated (in social practice an d outlook) attribution o f m eaning to individual and collective life, becom es the fou n da­

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

137

tion o f culture, or (in the language o f the Rom ans) o f the order o f things: the way in which life, and consequently the political system , is organized. Accordingly, a refusal to conform to the religio imperii, the d e ­ nial o f w orship o f the em peror, w as regarded not a s ideological d e ­ viance but as a political crim e. It w as equivalent to denying the va­ lidity o f the state, to underm ining its cohesion, to revolting again st it. T hat is why it incurred the death penalty. Only thus can we ex­ plain the persecu tion o f C hristians, the vast n um bers o f m artyrs, in the early centuries.53 W hen C hristianity cam e to be prevalent in the large centers o f p o p ­ ulation o f the Rom an Em pire (when the Church’s gospel w as ac ­ cepted freely and w ithout com pulsion by m ajor section s o f society in spite o f violent op position from the state), the Rom an govern­ m ent found itse lf confronted by new facts that could not be ig­ nored. There w as now de fa c to a com m on m ajority religion that could spontan eou sly an d easily en sure the cultural unity o f the em ­ pire beyond the differences o f nations, races, an d local traditions. The political dynam ic o f th is new factor, with its potential for en suring social cohesion, w as astu tely perceived by C onstantine the G reat in his m ilitary confrontation with M axentius (in 312). A ppealing on that occasion to a supern atural vision, he adopted Christian sym bols a s em blem s for his army, filling his C hristian so l­ diers with en th u siasm and leadin g them to victory. A year later, by the Edict o f Milan, the im position o f an ob liga­ tory im perial religion w as abolish ed and a ju dicio u s religious tol­ erance w as proclaim ed. The ecclesial event w as now in a pivotal position for giving m ean in g to life for a large part o f the em pire’s population. The p a x R om ana had begun to be u nderstood a s a p a x Christiana. To be sure, the first heresies that began to threaten the unity o f the Church were also taken by C onstantine as a threat to the cohesion o f the state— in practice the em peror w as already treating 53. See Kurt Pfister, Der Untergang der antiken Welt (Leipzig, 1941), 48; G. Grupp, Kulturgeschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit (Regensburg, 1921), llOff.; Theodor Birt, Das Romische Weltreich (Berlin, 1941), 83ff.

138

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

C hristianity as a religio imperii. He im m ediately sum m on ed a coun­ cil o f all the b ish ops o f the em pire (the bish ops o f the “oecum ene,” o f the imperium) and although not yet form ally a Christian him ­ se lf presided over it, the First Ecum enical Council (in 325 at Nicea in Bithynia). Moreover, C on stan tin e assisted the Church actively, granting privileges to the clergy and supplying funds for the bu ilding o f churches. Finally, his death bed baptism , his C hristian funeral, and his interm ent in the Church o f the Holy A postles at C onstantinople were perh aps his m ost im portant gift to the Church. They becam e the occasion for the sh apin g o f a new m etaphysical understanding o f politics that did not con stitute a break with the p ast but w as rather w as a fertile leap in continuity with the Greek tradition o f the polis and the com m on struggle for its realization. In the person o f the C hristian em peror, the m ind o f the Church saw the servant o f political unity as a reflection or im age o f the ecclesial com m u ­ nion o f p erso n s— it saw in the ancient Greek identification o f “b e ­ ing in com m union w ith” (koindnein) and “being tru e” (aletheuein) the prefiguring o f the eucharistic “kingdom .” The form al establish m en t o f Christianity as the “official religion” o f the Rom an Em pire w as brought about, forty-three years after the death o f C onstantine the Great, by the Em peror Theodosius, who w as likewise surnam ed “the Great.” In betw een th ese two d ates there had occurred the failure, on the political and social level, o f Julian’s attem pt to restore pagan ism by in stitutin g a peculiar am al­ gam o f the Twelve G ods o f the ancient Greek world with elem ents drawn from M ithraism and N eoplatonic beliefs. There had also o c ­ curred the painful experience o f the political con sequen ces that the C hristian heresies had for the em pire. T h eo dosiu s appeared determ in ed to en sure the unity and c o ­ h esion o f the em pire by return ing to the practice o f the religio imperii, a practice tried an d tested over the centuries. By an edict prom ulgated at T h essalonica on February 27, 380, he establish ed the catholic, apostolic Church as the official religion o f the em pire. By a law issued on Novem ber 8, 392, he proscribed the G reco-Ro­ m an religion and forbade access to the tem ples. In 393 he ab o l­

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

139

ished the O lym pic G am es, and in 396 the Eleusinian M ysteries. The Christian calen dar w as establish ed as the b asis for determ ining holidays and days o f rest in Rom an public life, and conversion to the “official religion” becam e an essen tial prerequisite for anyone who aspired to office throughout the em pire. If one takes into account both hum an ity’s “internal” instinctive need for religion and the “external” (for reason s o f collective util­ ity) im position o f C hristianity as an obligatory religion, one can perh aps im agine the extent o f the con sequen ces o f the alienation o f early Christian authenticity after T h eodosiu s the Great. This alienation m ay be stu died in every m inute asp ect o f the ecclesial event. It is difficult to date all the alien atin g chan ges p re­ cisely. T hat is b ecau se an essen tial factor (productive o f alienation) is the objectively indeterm inable alteration o f m ental outlook that in the long term results in in stitutional changes. Naturally, we lack a prim ary study o f the datin g o f such m ental shifts, for in principle the acceptance o f a fa it accom pli alienation is not at all easy psych o­ logically— even today, so m any centuries later. We are discu ssin g an alienation that has as its specific char­ acter the religionization o f the ecclesial event. Consequently, the m ain lines o f investigation are clear: we need to establish whether or not the m arks o f natural religiosity have intruded into the eccle­ sial event. A nd the prim ary m ark is the assign in g o f priority to d e ­ m an ds centered on the individual. Perhaps even before T h eo d osiu s’s decree, the great increase in the num ber o f C hristians had alienated in m any m inds the con­ scio u sn ess o f the Church as a eucharistic com m unity. Perhaps the aw areness that the Church is existence-as-participation in a body o f relations o f com m union and th at participation defines the struggle for self-transcendence, for love, had already weakened. The large num ber m u st im perceptibly have changed the priori­ ties: no longer participatin g in the com ing together o f a parish but “attending” public w orship as an individual; not a change in mode o f existence but an assem bly for com m on prayer, for an im pressive didactic spectacle design ed to produce com punction; not a struggle

140

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

to transcen d the se lf for the joy o f love but an attem pt to secure individual m erit. Religionization m ean s individualization, and the in dividualiza­ tion o f access to the Eucharist m u st have been the first u n conscious step toward the ab an d on in g o f the ecclesial mode o f participation. Individualized access m ean s that the g o sp el’s “salvation” ceases to refer to the draw ing o f b ein g from relations o f loving com m union and b ecom es identified w ith the individual reception o f the gifts o f the Eucharist. T h u s both term s o f reception (the receiver and w hat is received) are objectified: the bread and the wine tran sm it (a supernatural, alm o st m agical) “grace” independently o f p articipa­ tion in the eucharistic event. And the individual who receives the bread and the wine is obliged to conform to codified requirem ents o f w orthiness for such reception. The critical step, then, m u st have been the huge grow th o f the parish, the w eakening or com plete lo ss o f aw areness th at the Church is em bodied (and is experienced only as participation) in the eucharistic community. W hen th is aw areness is w eakened or lost, the road is wide open to all the different form s o f the dem and for religionization: to u n d erstan din g the Church’s dogm atic teach ­ ing in term s o f infallible supern atural form ulation s that offer the individual the assuran ce o f guaran teed m etaphysical convictions, to und erstan din g ascetical practice in term s o f ethics codified as law (and a s “canon law ”) th at arm ors the individual with certainties o f m easurable m erit, to un d erstan din g w orship in term s o f com ­ m on prayer and teachin g that guarantee the individual an audited “spiritu al” benefit. W hen th ese changes have also becom e em bedded, their further con sequen ces em erge w ithout hindrance: the Church im p o ses it­ se lf on people’s consciences a s an in stitution o f social utility that im proves m orals, am eliorates behavior, an d strength en s social co­ hesion. Such a useful in stitution cloth es itse lf in the goodw ill o f the secular authority and a d a p ts itse lf to the m eth ods an d tactics o f social control. O perating with the logic o f com m on utility, the in stitution inevitably also b ecom es coordinated with the logic o f the exercise o f power: the logic o f effectiveness, o f the d em an ds for objective authority, o f the external sym bols o f power (dress, formal

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

141

etiquette, a w ooden official language), o f strict hierarchical organi­ zation an d codified discipline. W ithin the perspective o f such an evolutionary trajectory, one ceases to be am azed by any extrem ism . It is not at all by chance that the bish op o f Rom e at an early stage cam e to assu m e the title o f the p agan ch ie f priest, pontifex m axim us, which had once been borne only by the em peror, and th at som e centuries later54 he had no hesitation in organizin g the Rom an church a s a secu lar state (Civitas Vaticana), transform in g the ecclesial event into an in sti­ tutional form o f political organization and su bjectin g the th in gs o f G od to Caesar. Both th e so -called “O rth o d o x ” ch u rch es an d the later Prot­ estan t c o n fessio n s con dem n ed “with lo ath in g ” the unholy tra n s­ form ation o f a lo cal church (th e R om an) into a sec u lar state. Yet they were clearly a ttracted by th e en terp rise. T he P ro testan t con ­ fe ssio n s so u g h t to e stab lish a sim ilarly effective exercise o f pow er th rou gh cu ltivatin g a version o f faith as th e p revailin g id eo lo gy in secu lar/civ ic life. (C h aracteristic ex am p les are the tu rn in g o f G e­ neva into a p olice sta te by Calvin, the in tertw inin g o f L u th eran ­ ism w ith sta te id eo lo gy in the Scan din avian cou n tries, the b raid ­ in g togeth er o f church an d state in E ngland, or th e p h en om en on o f civil religion in the U n ited States.) T he O rth odox church es, for th eir part, p erh ap s tu rn in g th e cath olicity o f every local church into an ab so lu te , let th em selv es slid e into the affirm atio n in p rac­ tice o f eth n op h yletism , m ak in g the ecclesial event su b jec t to the ethnic (h istorical an d cu ltu ral) self-c o n sc io u sn ess o f sta te s set up in the m od ern age, an d recon cilin g th em selv es to the role o f a state religion. T hus the political privileges o f the religio imperii, together with the outlook an d alienation th at w ent with them , also survived in the C hristian churches ou tsid e the Vatican version o f Rom an C atholi­ cism , either in the form o f a constitutionally protected “establish ed religion” or with the political strength o f a nation alist ideology. At any rate, the splendid conciliar system , which w as form ed to ensure

54. In the time of Stephen II, 754-56.

142

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

the unity o f the catholic Church throughout the oecumene, proved incapable o f functioning after the collapse o f the Rom an Em pire, that is, w ithout the su p p o rt o f the power structu res o f a “Suprem e A uthority” on the international level. Rom an C atholicism “solved” the problem o f the Church’s unity throughout the oecum ene by alienatin g ecclesial catholicity (which h as an existential character) into an ideological globalism obedien t to the authority o f the infallible cathedra o f the Roman p o n tiff (and the structu res by which his authority is exercised), creating for the first tim e in hum an history a fearsom e totalitarianism . Protestan t­ ism w ithdrew from the problem o f catholicity, but also from the con sciou sn ess o f the Church a s a body. It rem ained content with the convictions o f believers as individuals and with the rational validity o f such convictions, as well as with the practical utility o f a codified system o f eth ics— breaking up into over three hundred confessions, offshoots, and sects. A s far as O rth odoxism is concerned, it b o a sts th at it m ain ­ tain s the con ciliar system an d preserves a unity throughout the oecum ene. Yet it too is con ten t with verbal form ulation s o f an id e ­ ological ch aracter prod uced by (rarely convoked) m u ltin ation al councils, an d w ith the form al com m em oration in th e Euch arist o f the p resid in g h ierarch s (all o f them by each o f th em ) o f the n ation al churches. Ju st like the P rotestan ts, the O rth odox endure the dram a o f fragm en tation , not into ideological o ffsh oo ts b u t into m any “au to cep h alo u s” n ation al ch u rch es—with ch aotic con ­ seq u en ces for the O rth odox “d iasp o ra” in th e m u ltieth n ic so ciet­ ies o f the m odern W est. The ap p o in tm en t o f the Church as the religio imperii in th e con ­ text o f th e Rom an Em pire see m s to have left it the legacy o f a stro n g tem p tation to exercise effective pow er (or sim ply to enjoy the pleasu re o f power) in the cen tu ries th at follow ed— u p to the presen t day.

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

143

4.3. Augustine In the religion ization o f the ecclesial event, the work o f A ugustin e, b ish op o f H ippo (3 5 4 -4 3 0 ), plays a decisive role, even th ough it b elo n gs to an earlier era. Som e cen tu ries after his death , A u g u s­ tine w as the p oin t o f d ep artu re or corn ersto n e for a particu lar ver­ sion o f C hristianity, w hich becam e the o ccasio n for the breaku p o f the C hurch’s unity “th rou gh out the oecu m en e.” A nd th is rupture, the sch ism (the so -called First Sch ism in 8 6 7 an d the definitive on e o f 1054) h ad d ram atic con seq u en ces for the alien atio n o f the Church’s go spel. A s a learn ed b ish op with an exception al au th o rial gift, A u­ gu stin e sh ou ld have gone dow n in h istory a s an attractive figure b u t o f m argin al im portan ce on accou n t o f his serio u s d eviation s from the “cath o lic” w itn ess o f ecclesial experience. Later h istori­ cal dev elopm en ts an d p o litical am b ition s, however, brou gh t his w ork to the ep icen ter o f the evolution o f W estern Europe. They m ade him the source and gu aran tor o f a particu lar u n d erstan d in g o f C hristianity th at took hold in W estern Europe from the ninth century—an d w hich is today the prevailin g version in the w hole o f the C h ristian w orld. We should recall again very briefly the far-reaching chan ges that had taken place in the territories o f the W estern Rom an Em pire from the end o f the fourth to the sixth centuries AD. We usually call the influx o f barbarian tribes and n ation s into the em pire and their settlem ent there “the great m igration o f peoples.” O f a lower cul­ tural level than the native in h abitan ts they displaced, they brought ab ou t in 475 the collapse o f Rom an rule. Franks, G oths, H uns, Burgundians, Vandals, an d Lom bards, they cam e to con stitute the predom in ant elem ent in the popu la­ tion o f W estern Europe. A nd by the late eighth/early ninth cen­ tury, the m ilitary an d political power o f Charles, king o f the Franks, surnam ed the G reat (C arolus M agnus, or C harlem agne, 742-814), enabled him to su bject all the other tribes to his rule and form a vast state stretch ing from the North Sea to the Pyrenees and from the Atlantic to the Elbe.

144

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

The barbarian h ordes that dissolved the Rom an “order o f th in gs” in the W est had h astened to ado pt the Christian faith b e ­ cau se conversion to Christianity at that tim e w as the path to civi­ lization. The qu estion naturally arises: W hat can “conversion to C hristianity” m ean in the case o f large m asses o f people who could not possibly have un d erstood w hat until then had been the Greek expression o f (or w itn ess to) ecclesial experience— the Greek ph ilo­ sophical w ording o f the conciliar “definitions” and the teachin g o f the Fathers, the incom parable language o f Greek art? A t any rate, the C hristianized m ultiethnic kingdom o f C har­ lem agne cam e to asp ire to im perial statu s, than ks to its geographi­ cal extent and m ilitary power, on the m odel o f the (unique until that tim e) Rom an Empire. But it w as taken for granted by everyone that the em pire w as an international “order o f th in gs”: m ore a com ­ m on culture than a form o f state. It w as also taken for granted that C hristianity (the p ax C hristiana) w as the only b asis for a com m on culture in the international world o f th at tim e. Consequently, there w as no real room or logical possibility for a second C hristian em pire so long as the Christian Imperium Romanum rem ained on the h is­ torical stage with its center in New R om e/C onstantinople. Charlem agne saw clearly that his am bition to establish an em ­ pire presu ppo sed a cultural b asis for political unity that w as n eces­ sarily different from that o f the Rom an oecumene. The new b asis had to be founded on the C hristian faith. It therefore h ad to com e up with a different version o f th is faith on both the theoretical and the practical levels, a version that w as m ore correct and m ore genu­ ine than th at o f the Greeks, clearly differentiated and, above all, with a distinctive W estern identity. Only with such a new starting point for a civilized collective life could a new Christian “order o f th in gs” be justified internationally with its center now in the Frank­ ish W est. It w ould appear to be for th ese reason s that there arose at that tim e a polem ical literature con dem n ing the “errors” o f the G reeks— at least ten works datin g from the ninth to the thirteenth centuries bear the title Contra Errores Graecorum . At the sam e tim e A u gu s­ tine w as retrieved from the historical m argins to becom e the vital ideological discovery and w eapon o f the Franks.

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

145

A ugustine w as presented as an ideal b asis for an exclusively W est­ ern version o f C hristianity that w as clearly differentiated from the Greek tradition: a native W esterner h im self with a thoroughly Latin education and a rich body o f w ritings w ithout Greek influences— b ecau se he did not speak Greek and adm itted to reading it with difficulty if at all.55 At the sam e tim e he w as recognized throughout C hristendom as a brilliant exam ple o f som eon e who had repented o f a dissolute life, em braced a life o f ecclesial ascetic discipline, and attained episcopal office. He u nderstood the ecclesial gospel in term s o f a natural religion: in term s o f intellectual individualism , m oralistic legalism , and em otional “interiority.” As a C hristian writer A ugustine clearly forged his own path, given that he lacked fam iliarity either with the Greek texts occa­ sioned by the theological ferm ent o f the first C hristian centuries, or the Greek ph ilosophical controversies that generated th is fer­ ment. He adapted Christian teaching to the structu res o f his legal­ istic thought in order to m ake the gospel accessible to the n eeds o f a sim plified religious understanding. He did this through clum sy m isu n derstan d in gs o f the fundam ental presu pposition s o f eccle­ sial experience and particularity. The m ain lines o f A ugustin e’s distortion and religionization o f the Church’s gospel m ay be sum m arized a s follows: First is a typically religious (con sisten t with natural instinctive re­ ligiosity) individualism — an individualized version o f faith, m oral­ ity, and experience. In A u gu stin e’s work there is not the slightest aw areness or hint o f the m ost im portan t revelation o f the gospel: the Triadic God, that is, the mode o f real existence and life, o f ex­ istence that is not predeterm ined by a given nature but con stitutes the freedom o f loving relation— that h ypostasizes love as personal otherness. There is no aw areness or hint that the Church is real­ ized by reference to this mode o f existential freedom (freedom from 55. See Confessions 1.13.20 and 1.14.23: “I hated Greek literature when I was being taught it as a small b o y . . . I did not know any of the words, and violent pressure on me to learn them was imposed by m eans o f fearful and cruel punish­ ments” (Henry Chadwick, trans., Saint Augustine: Confessions [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991], 15, 17). See also De Trinitate, preface to book 3, where he confesses his inability to read the Greek Fathers o f the Church in the original.

146

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

death ), that it is the prod uct o f a struggle to express com m union in existence and in life, a dynam ic denial o f the individualistic m ode o f created and m ortal hum an nature, or a participation in existence as a relation o f love, self-transcendence, and self-offering. The ec­ clesial event as an existential goal is entirely ab sen t from A u gu s­ tin e’s work. The Church is only a religious in stitution serving the individual’s faith, virtue, an d salvation. Salvatio n for A u gu stin e m ean s a “su p ern atu ral” resp o n se o f th e T ran scen den t to th e d e sire /d e m an d o f h u m an b ein gs for th eir ato m ic egos to ex ist for all eternity, to live forever in a b s o ­ lu te h ap p in ess. T he ego is d iscreetly d isg u ise d u n d er th e Platonic invention o f the (o n tologically in d eterm in ate) “soul,” an d th is is id en tified w ith the old term the inner m an. T he soul, or in ner m an, w ins salv atio n a s deliverance from th e lim itatio n s o f m at­ ter, or th e outer m an. T he C h ristian ’s “sp iritu al stru g g le” is to figh t a g a in st m atter, th e d em a n d s o f the body, on th e level o f his n atu ral atom ic being.

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

147

(a kind o f om nipotence) o f the individual based in the individual’s intellectual capacities (in the fa c u lta s ration is) sign p osts the h is­ torical journey o f the new peoples o f W estern Europe. Individual­ ism and in tellectualism were to becom e elem ents o f the identity o f European m an, and their very obvious startin g point an d source lie chiefly in A ugustine. An ab so lu te con fid en ce in th e in d iv id u al’s in tellectu al cap acity is com b in ed in A u gu stin e w ith an equ ally ab so lu te affirm atio n o f em o tion al urges, form ing a clo sed self-referen tial dynam ic w ithin the lim its o f w hich A u gu stin e’s an th ro p o lo gy an d m etaph ysics are fully ex h au sted . H um an b ein gs are d efin ed a s th eir “interiority.” They are d eterm in ed by w hatever h ap p en s “w ithin” them , the in terior a m alg am o f in tellectu al certain ty an d em otion al w ell-being. But at the sam e tim e they also m eet G od “w ithin” th em selves. T hey m eet him precisely in term s o f th eir individual in tellectu al certain ty an d in dividu al em o tion al w ell-being. The en co u n ter is a private one, the p rod u ct o f tu rn in g th eir atten tio n in w ard.57

A u gu stin e’s religious individualism affirm s the equally instinctive need for intellectualist m etaphysical certainties. Religious individ­ uals w ant to p o ssess sure know ledge o f the hereafter. They w ant to be able to control th is know ledge by their intellectual capacity, to exorcise by intellectual certainty their natural fear o f death. A ugustin e’s affirm ation o f in tellectualism presu pposes, and therefore also m aintains, a ph ilosophical essentialism 56 (also o f Platonic origin), the sen se o f existence a s individual onticity d e ­ fined by its given (in the Divine M ind— in mente divina) essence. The hum an m ind, a m iniature (“in the im age”) o f the Divine Mind, can know all thin gs through the individual’s intellectual con cep­ tion o f the universal id eas/essen ces. All th in gs are verified in the coincidence o f the sen sory im age o f every being with the intellec­ tual conception o f its essence. T h u s the individual m ind defines an d verifies know ledge— the m ind, not the experiential im m ediacy o f the relation. The feeling o f the ab solu te and self-evident priority

T his nonrelational (beyond any p o ssib le relation) in dividualis­ tic perspective o f A u gu stin e’s w as to form a characteristic m ark o f the W est’s m entality, a determ in in g elem ent o f the historical habits o f thought that have gu id ed m etaphysical inquiry in Europe. God is “w ithin” the atom ic individual, w ithin the in dividual’s “inward­ ness,” an d th is private p o ssessio n o f G od is validated either by the em otion s (strictly self-referential subjective experience, “m ystical” feeling, psychological “blissfuln ess,” joy, and security) or by intel­ lectualist apodictic an alysis— m ore often the two together. A m ong th o se who continued A ugustin e’s work, the leadin g figures were also suprem e exponen ts o f intellectualism , apodictic positivism , an d the rational m ethod. At the sam e tim e they were en thusiastic propon ents o f the “hidden G od” (D eus abscon ditu s), o f faith a s ex­ ceeding reason (Fides excedit rationem )—A nselm , T h om as A qui­ nas, A lbert the Great, an d John D uns Scotus.

56. We should not forget that Augustine had access chiefly to Plato’s main works in Latin translation. He came into contact with “Christian Platonism” through his studies with Ambrose o f Milan.

57. See the excellent discussion o f this topic titled “The correlation between God and interiority” in Ilias Papagiannopoulos, Exodos theatrou: Dokimio ontologias meploego ton "Moby Dick” tou H. Melville (Athens: Indiktos, 2000), 81ff.

148

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

A ugustin e transcribed the w itn ess/teach in g o f the Church into the language and structu res o f thought o f his legal trainin g and ju rid i­ cal experience. T his schem atic legal approach h elped him achieve an im pressive sim plification and popularization o f C hristian w it­ n ess so as to m ake it accessible to people o f low cultural attain ­ m ent or none at all. However, the legalism (in accordance, to a large extent, with the m entality that accom pan ied an instinctive religi­ osity) trapped A u gu stin e’s sim plifying ad ap tation s in w hat w as a c ­ tually a religious den ial o f the ecclesial event and gospel. Both the A postle Paul and Christian w riters who preceded A u­ gu stin e had used schem atic form s, exam ples, and im ages drawn from the language o f the law and from juridical experience in or­ der to interpret the relationship betw een hum anity and God. But these m odes o f expression continued the allusive (rather than lit­ eral) style o f the im agery o f the G ospels, the allegorical relativity o f the form ulations. Only with A ugustine do legal an d juridical form s o f thinking claim the validity o f a p rag m a tist interpretation, obvi­ ously satisfyin g the dem an ds for sch em atization that accom pany an instinctive religiosity. And gradually they becam e estab lish ed in p eo ple’s m inds as the only p o ssib le version. A ugustin e’s position on two vital topics o f Christian th eologi­ cal speculation, his interpretation o f hum anity’s so-called “original sin” and his account o f the reason for C hrist’s death on the cross, actually functioned as a catalyst for a radical change o f m ental ou t­ look in the Christian world. The C hristian God ceased to be the Bridegroom , the p assion ate lover o f hum ankind, and w as under­ stood as a grim avenger, an im placable inflictor o f punishm en t on the hum an race as a whole, on account o f the first hum an couple, who had used their freedom in a way that w as displeasin g to God. In consequence, the sam e G od w as identified with the im age o f a “sad istic fath er” b ecau se he did not hesitate to inflict a hor­ rific death on his Son sim ply so that his righ teou sn ess could exact a satisfaction equal to the offense that h ad been given to him . It is abundantly clear that the origin s o f this appallin g distortion are to be found in A ugustin e’s own theological constructions. And if God, who in all other respects is “all-good,” satisfies his righ teousn ess with the death o f Christ on the cross, why should A ugustine not

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

149

go on to infer that the righteous in heaven, for their part, enjoy the sight o f sin ners being tortured in hell? T hus the gospel o f the victory over hell has been transform ed into a religion o f the fear o f hell. To th is fear is also add ed the panic o f a program m atic uncertainty: the uncertainty o f who are “pred es­ tin ed” by G od for salvation and who will be dam ned, program m ed w ithout reason or cau se to be lost however m uch they try to please God. The God o f A ugustinian legalism is not only vengeful and sa ­ distic but is also irrationally unjust, all for the sake o f m aintaining a ration alist explanation o f his om niscience. The teachin g on the double predestin ation o f hum anity w as to set an agon izin g stam p on both the religious and the social life o f the W est;58 generation upon generation, m illions o f people were to live their unique life in a state o f torm en ting anxiety or h opeless rebellion. To this b rief sketch sh ould be add ed A u gu stin e’s philosophically em bellished M anichaeism : his insistence on the an tith esis between m atter and spirit, body and soul, m oral life an d physical pleasu re— a deprecia­ tion, loathing, an d fear o f sexuality. Ignorant o f the distinction betw een essence an d energies with which the C appadocian Fathers interpreted m atter ontologically as the lo go s/m an ifestation o f the personal oth erness o f the divine hy­ p o stases (the result o f which is the m atter o f divine energy, which is not identified either with the essence or with the h ypostases o f the 58. See Max Weber’s classic study, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit o f Capitalism (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), first published as Die protestantischer Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus in 1905, which connects the phenomenon of the “am assing o f capital” and the origin o f capitalism with the Protestant world’s appropriation o f Augustine’s teaching on absolute pre­ destination. See also Jurgen Moltmann, Praedestination und Perseveranz (Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1961); Gotthard Nygren, D as Pradestinationsproblem in der Theologie Augustins (Lund: printed dissertation, 1956); Rune Soderlund, Ex praevisa fidei: Zum Versfandnis der Pradestinationslehre in der lutheranischen Orthodoxie (Hanover: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1983); and Olivier Clement, He theologia meta ton “thanato tou Theou, " vol. 7 o f the Synoro series (Athens: Dodone, 1973), where we read on p. 42, “The personal God is presented as a celestial policeman, whose glance petrifies us to the depths of our being and our future, like an absolute Subject who objectifies us and whose omniscience and omnipotence transform history into a puppet theater. Thus humankind is noth­ ing and God becomes responsible for all the evils o f the world.”

150

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

G odh ead59), A ugustin e found h im self in a herm eneutic im passe. He w as attracted by the Platonic invention o f the Ideas, which p re­ determ ine the fo rm /m ode and the en d/goal o f the existence o f sen ­ sible things, but he w as unable to accept their on tological au ton ­ om y and tran spo sed the Platonic world o f the Ideas into the divine intellect identified with the divine essence. The id eas/fo rm s exist ou tsid e o f sen sible bein gs and independently o f them . They have in them selves a given and com plete essential perfection b ecau se they are contained w ithin the essence o f God. Such a theory, however, leaves the m atter o f the world ontologically w ithout explanation and attrib u tes to each p articu lar existent the character o f iconic/virtual (unreal) existence. A ugustine knows that if we refer the on tological principle o f m atter to God, we end up in pantheism . If we tran sp o se the ontological principle o f m at­ ter to m atter itself, we have to accept, with Plato, the self-existence and eternity o f matter. A ugustine has no solution to the problem . He resorts to an easy escape: he pronounces m atter a reality that in its essence is n othingness, a penitus nihil.60 T hu s the residue o f his period o f attach m en t to the M anichees settled and developed to estab lish in the W est the interrelated polarization s that would identify C hristianity in the popu lar m ind with a religion o f guilt, rem orse, and anxiety ab ou t the corruptibility o f hum anity and the m ateriality o f the world. It is not at all accidental that A ugustin e is universally recognized— independently o f the ideological prin ciples or m ethodological pre­ su p p o sitio n s with which one approach es historical study— as the cornerstone or begetter o f the culture th at w as born in the postRom an W est. As the foundation o f the Vatican version o f C hristian­ ity, o f Sch olasticism , an d also o f the Protestant Reform ation; as the theoretical source o f religious, ideological, and political totalitari­ an ism and sim ultan eously o f individualism ; as a precursor o f D es­ cartes’ cogito and o f K ant’s critique and au ton om ous ethics; and as 59. See my Person and Eros (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2007), §§ 19-23. 60. See my Philosophie sans rupture, trans. Andr6 Borr61y (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1986), § 28.

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

151

an inspiration to the ch ief propon en ts o f intellectualism and also to the o u tstan din g teachers o f m ysticism and pietism , A ugustine su m m arizes in a single source and root the m any-branched and often m utually h ostile ram ifications o f W estern European civiliza­ tion. This civilization has given the greatest po ssib le religionization o f the ecclesial event a global dim ension. It h as also led to a m ilitant rejection o f m etaphysics, w hose identification with a repulsive and oppressive C hristianity is everywhere taken for granted.

4.4. Ideological Catholicity Two separate bod ies em erged from C hristen dom ’s sch ism in 1054. O ne defined itse lf as the Roman Catholic Church, the other a s the O rthodox Catholic Church. T hese titles clearly revealed two differ­ ent versions o f catholicity: one Rom an, the other O rthodox. The pivotal difference betw een th ese two portion s o f the Christian world (w hether con scious or unconscious) w as their u n d erstan d­ ing o f catholicity. It should be m entioned that until the tim e o f the schism the term Catholic Church defined the genu in eness and authenticity o f the ecclesial event in con tradistinction with heresy. H eresy (from the Greek verb hairoum ai, “I prefer,” “I ch oose”) indicated the result o f an elected version o f the presu ppo sitio n s o f the ecclesial event, a choice that led to a distinctively private approach (idiazein), to a peculiar und erstan din g and experience o f the go sp el— peculiar and disjunctive with regard to the w hole (the katholou) o f the ecclesial body. The criterion o f the d istin ction betw een an ecclesial com m u­ nity (parish or diocese) and a heretical group w as not the difference o f “convictions,” or any codified form ulations o f experience. It w as catholicity. The ecclesial com m unity realized an d m anifested the whole (the katholou) o f the ecclesial event, the totality o f the g o s­ pel’s hope. And this catholicity w as attributed to it by all the other local churches through the liturgical com m union that w as ensured by the conciliar system . Even after the schism the Greek East con tinued to m aintain the understanding o f catholicity that had been held in com m on until

152

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

that tim e. O f course, for the conciliar system , which ensured the distinction o f the Church from heresy, to be able to function, the East depended on the effectiveness o f the in stitution s o f the Em ­ pire o f New R om e/C on stantin ople, in stitution s that m aintained the political an d social coh esion o f its C hristian peoples. By con­ trast, the elder Rome had to deal with a European W est fragm ented politically an d socially into a num ber o f barbarian kingdom s, prin ­ cipalities, duchies, an d coun ties w here each ruler claim ed to decide for h im self the correct faith o f his subjects. In th ese circum stan ces it w as alm o st im possib le for the Church o f Rome, the church “presid in g” in the W est, to guarantee and pre­ serve sim ply by its ecclesiastical authority the catholicity (genu­ ineness, w holeness, an d authenticity) o f the local churches to be found there. It w as th u s led to the solution o f itse lf assu m in g the role o f political leadersh ip so a s to be in a position to im pose orth o­ dox thinking by em ploying m ean s effective in the secu lar sphere. The Rom an Church succeeded in w inning from the Frankish king Pepin the Short (715-68), C harlem agne’s father, recognition as an au ton om ous state (in 754) with a specific territorial sovereignty and with in stitution s an d functions that en abled it to intervene au ­ thoritatively in international relations. T his evolution, a result rather o f an inexorable historical n eces­ sity (but also o f the in disputable struggle for prim acy o f “ju risd ic­ tion” betw een the patriarchates o f Rom e and New Rome), produced in the W est a new version and u n d erstan din g o f catholicity th at w as purely geographical an d quantitative. Catholicity now m ean t not the w holeness and fullness o f a mode o f existence, but the in tern a­ tion al (or even global) character o f objective m arks o f the ecclesial event, such as fa ith as official “doctrin e” an d conform ing to a codi­ fied ethics. Faith ceases to be a struggle to attain trust, to attain relations o f loving com m union. It ceases to be the fruit o f self-transcendence. It is identified with convictions p o ssessed by the individual, with the individual’s intellectual assen t to “official” axiom atic declara­ tion s and principles. Faith is transform ed into an ideology, and its authenticity is confirm ed now not by the dynam ic o f a shared expe­ riential verification (the conciliar function) but by an institution o f

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

153

infallible authority: the episcopal cathedra or see (supposedly) o f the A postle Peter and o f each successive bishop o f Rome. T he sam e see also determ in es the regulative prin ciples o f conduct, the m oral­ ity o f those who are believers in this ideological sen se, through a juridical system o f codified can on s and also by m ean s o f a con stant series o f declarations on topical m oral problem s. It is easy to understand how and why the qu an titative/geograph ­ ical version o f catholicity w as an effective solu tion to the problem o f the unity o f the C hristian world in the W est an d at the sam e tim e the m atrix for the generation (for the first tim e in hum an history) o f the ph enom enon we call totalitarianism . H um anity had known various form s o f ab so lu tist rule, tyranny, and arbitrary despotism . But it had not known a form o f authority that controlled not only public con duct but also the convictions o f individuals, their ideas and views, their private life. It had not known in stitutions such as the Holy Inquisition that punished thoughtcrim es, nor the Index o f Prohibited Books, the system atic in doctrination o f the m asses e s­ tablish ed by the C ongregatio de P ropaganda Fidei, the principle o f infallible leadersh ip enshrined in the papal infallible m agisterium , the use o f torture a s a m ethod o f exam in ation (authorized by a bull o f Innocent IV in 1252). The Rom an version o f catholicity becam e identical with the alien ­ ation o f the ecclesial event in a centrally controlled ideology and codified m oralism : its radical religionization. All the elem ents and m arks o f a natural religion are m anifest in the Rom an Catholic tra­ dition as in stitutionalized respo n ses to hum anity’s biological, in­ stinctive need for religion. They are m anifest in an intellectualist safegu ardin g o f m etaphysical certainties; in a m oralistic legalism , or fear o f freedom ; in su b m issio n to an “infallible” authority, or fear o f grow ing up; an d in the idolization o f “dogm a,” or fear o f risking ascetical access to experiential knowledge. A s in any religion, salvation w as understood a s an event cen­ tered on the individual an d proclaim ed a s su ch — a narcissistic, neurotic goal. M atter w as depreciated, the hum an body becam e a source o f an guish ed guilt, an d erotic love w as identified with the terror o f a punishable “impurity.” At the sam e tim e the Church’s

154

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

service to hum anity o f freeing us from slavery to the egocentrism o f guilt w as alienated into an authority “to bind an d to loose,” an all-powerful authority from the m om ent the full weight o f p an gs o f guilt that are so intolerable for hum anity began to be felt. T he ex­ pression “plenitude o f pow er” (plenitudo p o te statis) literally m ean s that the bish op o f Rome claim ed (and for lon g perio d s succeeded in enforcing) that he alone (than ks to the ab so lu te power on earth granted to him by G od) “invests” the secular rulers, kings, and sov­ ereigns with the in signia o f their office, and consequently that it w as also he who dep osed them when he ju dged their action s not to conform to true piety. And if kings and sovereigns were directly or indirectly subject to the pope, how m uch m ore com pletely were the laity su b ject to the “Church,” th at is, to the clergy. Those who exercised the authority “to bind and to loose,” the clergy as a whole, were charged, moreover, with the authority that cam e from the obligatory renunciation o f sexuality: the priesth ood w as linked w ithout exception to celibacy. W ith full aw areness o f the powerful prerogatives and high m erit that went with their sexual privation, the clergy in the m edieval W est con stituted a distinct social class th at enjoyed a stan dard o f living incom parably higher than that o f the ordinary laity an d often even higher than that o f the nobility. The Rom an version o f catholicity succeeded in solving the problem o f the unity o f the particular local churches in an im pressively ef­ fective manner. But there is no dou bt that it radically changed the character o f ecclesial unity, tran sform in g it into an ideologically disciplin ed uniform ity and a h om ogen ous legal m oralism . (The Rom an Catholic totalitarian m odel o f unity w as reproduced som e centuries later by M arxism , in its im position o f a single an d once again “infallible” cathedra— M oscow— and an inflexible system o f obedience o f the “faithful” to the party ideology and m orality.61) By the criteria o f the Church’s gospel, the Rom an version o f catholicity w as a dram atic historical failure, even if by the criteria o f secular efficiency it m ay be reckoned a success. 61. See also my essay “Vatikano kai Diamartyrese ston Marxiimo" in my H i neoellenike tautoteta (Athens: Grigori, 1978), 23-31.

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

155

Sadly, the historical outcom e o f the O rthodox version w as no better. Ecclesial catholicity a s a w h olen ess o f the existential achievem ent, a s a m ode o f com m union and coexistence, rem ained a theoretical b oast o f the O rthodox but in practice proved to be a goal that w as u nattain able an d unrealizable. Two basic factors contributed to the alienation o f ecclesial catholicity in the case o f the O rthodox churches as well. The first w as (and still is) the un­ con sciou s (and perh aps even con sciou s) im itation o f the Vatican m odel. The second, o f course, w as nationalism . On the collapse o f the em pire o f New R om e/C onstantinople, an d the su b seq u en t subjection o f the cradle o f H ellenism to harsh Turkish rule for as long as four centuries, the patriarchate o f C on­ stan tin ople w as recognized by th e sultan as the sole authority (the sole spiritu al—an d indirectly political— leadership) representing O rthodox C hristians su bject to the Turks. The other an cient p atri­ archates (Alexandria, Antioch, and Jeru salem ) could only approach the Turkish governm ent in connection with any n eeds or requests through the patriarchate o f C onstantinople. This exclusive prerog­ ative m u st have encouraged the developm ent o f som ethin g an alo ­ gous to a Vatican m entality in C onstantinople. O f course, from as early a s the tim e o f the Fourth Ecum enical Council (451), ecclesial experience in its in stitutionalized form ac ­ know ledged a vitally im portan t prerogative in the patriarchate o f Constantinople, the prerogative o f convoking ecum enical councils o f b ish op s and p resid in g at them . This prerogative w as (and still is) a guaran tee o f unity o f the one catholic Church “throughout the oecu m en e”— a responsibility o f diakonia, or service, to ecum eni­ cal unity, a prerogative groun ded in a responsibility and guarantee founded on the function o f conciliarity as p resu pposition al for the ecclesial event. Conciliarity extends the existential unity o f the eucharistic body in the totality o f its local m anifestations. The extrem ely difficult con ditions o f ecclesial life in the centu­ ries o f the Tourkokratia also lim ited the way conciliarity could func­ tion — it w as not easy, and often im possible, for b ish op s to travel. T h u s the councils th at had to be convoked to deal with pressing problem s (to set the b ou n daries o f ecclesial experience as again st

156

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

heretical deviations62) were held with a sm all num ber o f bish ops selected on groun ds th at are difficult to determ ine. It rem ains h is­ torically obscure w hether the selection o f bish ops w as the result o f the difficult con ditions o f the tim es or the result o f a dim inished sen se o f the Church’s nature, a lim ited aw areness o f the role o f conciliarity in estab lish in g the authenticity o f the ecclesial event. We also find evidence o f a m istaken u n d erstanding o f conciliarity in the in stitutionalization, datin g from the seventeenth century, o f the “resid en t” (as it w as called) patriarchal synod—a synod con stituted by the bish ops “residing” in the patriarchal see. Such a synod no longer referred to bish ops su m m on ed to a council with a view to w itn essing the experience o f the eucharistic body over which each “presided.” It referred to clerics who had been prom oted to episcopal rank but who for various reasons (chiefly reason s connected with the unfavorable con ditions created by the Turkish occupation) h ad been forced to aban don their dioceses. They resided at the seat o f the patriarchate assu m in g adm in istra­ tive and advisory responsibilities, that is, the role o f sen ior officials o f an institutional class o f adm inistrators. This m ore or less u n conscious alienation both o f the institution o f a council and o f the function o f a bishop indicated in reality the ado ption o f a Rom an Catholic ecclesiology by the O rthodox East. For the Rom an Catholics a local eucharistic com m unity con stitutes an ecclesial event only becau se it is legally recognized a s such (by objectified ideological and institutional criteria) by the papal see o f Rom e—the bish op sim ply adm in isters or serves it; he d o es not con stitute the presu pposition for its con stitution as its head and fath er. A com m unity in the W est can be ecclesial w ithout its own bishop, and a cleric can be a bish op w ithout presiding over an eccle­

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event; Historical Overview

157

predisposition for the realization and m an ifestation o f the Catholic Church: o f the whole and integral im aging by the Church o f Triadic true existence. From the m iddle o f the seventeenth century, the O rthodox p atri­ archates began, w ithout any reservation or hesitation, to ado pt the Vatican practice o f ordaining titular bishops, that is, bish ops “with the bare title o f a diocese.” T hese are granted the title o f bish op (o f fa th e r and head) o f a nonexistent local church “once em inent in an tiquity”; in reality they are bish ops w ithout a diocese (like m ay­ ors w ithout a borough). Their episcopal function is only that o f an adm inistrative office within the context o f the responsibilities and needs o f the patriarchate. The evolution o f this distortion is irreversible. The nineteenth century even saw the rise o f a hierarchy o f different grades am ong the titular bishops. The institution o f the titular “m etropolitan ” w as created, and the even higher rank o f the “active m etropolitan ” (titular, o f course, w ithout a m etropolitan ate), the m etropolites en energeial Episcopi titulares were th u s establish ed in the O rthodox world, in absolute fidelity to Vatican ecclesiology and in accordance with p resu pposition s precisely as laid down by papal canon law: qui peculiari m uneresibi ab A postolica S e d e . .. dem andato in territorio fu n gu n tu r.6i

sial community. This un d erstan din g lies at the op posite pole to O rthodox eccle­ siology. It am oun ts to a n egation o f the Church’s gospel, o f the mode o f existence that defines the ecclesial event. The bish op’s diakonia, or service, as fa th er and head o f a specific ecclesial body (“as a type and in the place o f C hrist”) is for all O rthodox an in dispensable

In an obvious but uncontested m anner, O rthodox patriarchs, even to the present day, are surrounded by perm an ent synods o f (as a rule) titular m etropolitans, archbish ops, and bishops, organized as “com m ittees” or “dep artm en ts” with special adm inistrative re­ sponsibilities in faithful im itation o f the Rom an Curia. This now institutionalized bureaucracy replaces the conciliar system o f a p ­ ostolic and patristic tradition and excludes the active p asto rs o f the ecclesial body scattered throughout the territory falling within the boun daries o f the patriarchate from participation in central synodical responsibilities. In other words, it excludes the w itn ess o f the ecclesial body from patriarchal decisions.

62. nople.

63. Latin: "who perform in the territory the special function entrusted to them by the 1loly See.”

Such as the councils of 1638, 1642, 1672, and 1691 held at Constanti­

158

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

A nother decisive factor th at contributed toward the historical fail­ ure o f the O rthodox version o f ecclesial catholicity w as n ation al­ ism . It could be argu ed th at the O rthodox version o f the unity o f the Catholic Church “throughout the oecum en e” functioned sat­ isfactorily so lon g as “ecu m enical” w as identified with the adm in ­ istrative, political, and cultural unity o f the Rom an Em pire. The in stitution o f the so-called pentarchy o f the sen ior patriarchates (Rom e, New Rome, A lexandria, A ntioch, an d Jerusalem ) w as piv­ otal for the operation o f the conciliar system , which ensured unity “throughout the oecu m en e” on the b asis o f the cultural h om oge­ neity o f all these H ellenized com m unities. H ellenism functioned a s a catalyst (or servant) o f the ecum enical hom ogen ization and uniform cohesion o f the discrete local churches. T he Franks were the first to aspire to independence from Greco-Rom an “ecumenicity.” They were the first to set up an em pire beyond the b ou n daries o f the G reco-Rom an world, a G erm anic “o e ­ cum ene” with its own in stitution for en su rin g ecclesiastical unity, a patriarchate defined alon g n ation alist lines. The resistance o f Latin O rthodoxy from the ninth to the eleventh centuries delayed the com plete realization o f th is am bition. W hen a Frank w as for the first tim e appoin ted bish op o f Rome (1014), the road lay open for a G erm anic “oecum en e”—an d its auton om y w as aggressively defined by the schism o f 1054. The Frankish exam ple w as follow ed by the Bulgars, initially w ith out success. A t the begin n in g o f th e ten th century, King Sym eon con quered the entire area from th e Black Sea to the A dri­ atic an d from the D anube to M ount O lym pus. He then h asten ed to unite h is c o n q u ests ecclesiastically a s well u n d er the arch b ish ­ op ric o f O chrid, w hich he declared in d ep en d en t with a purely n a­ tion al character. Sym eon’s state collapsed, but not the B ulgars’ am b ition s o f n a­ tional ecclesiastical autonom y. In 1235 the purely Bulgarian prov­ inces in the Balkans were united ecclesiastically under the in depen ­ dent archbishopric o f Trnovo, w hereupon the archbish op assu m ed the title o f “patriarch.” A century later (1355) Patriarch K allistos o f C onstantinople declared that “he is called patriarch o f Bulgaria

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

159

but is not to be num bered with the other m ost holy p atriarch s and therefore is not to be com m em orated in the sacred diptychs.”64 The next attem pt w as m ade by the Serbs. They too w anted to set up an em pire and in consequence to found at the sam e tim e a national patriarchate. In the m id-fourteenth century, under their ruler Stephen DuSan (1308-55), the Serbs reached the lim its o f their con quests. DuSan then proclaim ed the Serbian archbish op o f Ped “patriarch” w ith the intention o f being crowned “em peror o f the Serbs and G reeks” by him . But th is achievem ent w as short-lived. After the Frankish schism , the second great an d definitive achievem ent o f nation alism on the ecclesiastical level w as the su c ­ cessful claim to the title o f patriarch by M oscow (1589). The process leadin g up to th is covers alm ost the whole o f the fifteenth century. T his w as the century o f the aw akening o f the n a­ tional con sciou sn ess o f the R ussians an d the efforts o f the M usco­ vite state to attain political autonom y. A s in the case o f the Franks, this aw akening w as accom pan ied by an aggressive anti-H ellenism — w eaning itse lf away from dependence on the G reeks (from dep en ­ dence on the Greek cultural body o f the ecclesial event) perhaps dem anded recourse to som e kind o f parricide. The sam e fifteenth century also saw the fall o f C onstantinople (1453), the su bjection o f H ellenism to the harsh Turkish yoke, and its near disappearan ce from the historical scene. In m any m inds (not only o f the G reeks), this event had the character o f a “sign” o f apocalyptic or esch atological significance. In R ussia it w as in­ terpreted as a punishm en t visited on the G reeks becau se they had betrayed the O rthodox truth o f the Church at the unionist (even if ineffectual) council o f Ferrara-Florence (1438-45). W ithin such a clim ate there w as conceived in R ussia in the fif­ teenth century the idea o f M oscow the Third Rome: “For two Rom es have fallen, a third stan d s and a fourth there cann ot be.”65 For Rus­ sian nation alism the idea w as striking and extrem ely suggestive that the R ussians had been chosen by divine providence to form 64. F. Miklosich and J. Muller, Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani (Vi­ enna, 1860), 1:437. 65. George* Florovsky, Ways o f Russian Theology, vol. 5 o f The Collected Work* of George* Floroviky (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1979), 11.

160

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

a new "O rth odox” em pire and therefore a patriarchate with a pri­ m acy am o n g the O rthodox churches. In 1589 Patriarch Jerem ias II o f C onstantinople cam e to R ussia to organize the collection o f alm s. The R ussians then m anaged (“by force and through gu ile”66) to exact from him the prom ise th at the m etropolitan ate o f M oscow w ould be raised to patriarchal status. Four years later, in 1593, Jerem ias II convoked a great council at C onstantinople, with the participation o f the O rthodox patriarchs and m any m etropolitan s, that p u t the prom ise into effect. It recog­ nized M oscow a s a patriarchate, the first national patriarchate, and assign ed it sixth place in the honorary hierarchy after Jerusalem . The R ussians believed th at the Third Rome w as not sim ply a continuation o f the Second but replaced it. The Third Rome w as com m itted not to prom oting or conserving but to replacing and re-creating the G reek C on stan tin opolitan tradition, to building up from scratch the new (Third) Rome in order to ou st the two older Rom es th at had fallen. The victory o f the H agarenes (the M uslim s) over the G reeks signified to the R ussians a m anifest punishm ent o f the G reeks for the betrayal o f their faith. It rendered the Greeks thoroughly unworthy, b ecau se they lived under the yoke o f the H agarenes, the ab solu te sovereignty o f the “pagan tsa r’s realm o f the godless Turks.”67 There th u s began in R ussia a frantic effort (o f exactly the sam e nature as th at o f the Franks som e centuries earlier) to differenti­ ate Russian believers from the G reeks in one way or an other in the m any external elem ents o f ecclesial life— fortunately not also in m atters o f do gm a (in the conciliar form ulation s o f ecclesial experi­ ence) as in the case o f the Franks. T he Franks had accurately per­ ceived that the break with the Greek East could be accom plished historically only if it w as experienced a s a m anifest difference in popu lar practice. T hat is why, over and above the dogm atic innova­ tions, they insisted on chan gin g external form s. They in sisted that the faithful should m ake the sign o f the cro ss with five (not with three) fingers, that clerics should shave their faces and cut their 66. Konstantinos Sathas, Biographikon schediasma peri tou Patriarchou leremiou B' (1572-1594) (Thessalonica: Pournaras, 1979), 83ff. 67. See Florovsky, Ways o f Russian Theology, 12.

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

161

hair, an d that b aptism should be carried out by sprinkling, not by im m ersion in water. They ab olish ed com m union by the laity o f the w ine in the Eucharist, and replaced the bread with the unleavened “host.”68 They im posed obligatory celibacy on the clergy, an d so on an d so forth. More gently, but clearly by the sam e logic, the R ussians in­ sisted on differentiations that m ade their own national particular­ ity im m ediately apparent: a R ussian form o f the cross (with three h orizontal cross-pieces on the vertical axis), a R ussian form o f the cassock, a R ussian form o f headgear, a Russian veil for clerics, a Russian type o f iconography (with an ethereal im pression istic ele­ m ent), a R ussian ecclesiastical architecture (with an em ph asis on the radically different and solely decorative on ion-sh aped dom e). O f course, th ese are difference o f an external and secondary n a­ ture that could very easily have gone unnoticed if it had not been intended that they sh ould function as expression s o f national par­ ticularity, o f a th ru st tow ard primacy. The n ation alistic fragm entation o f the unity o f the O rthodox churches w as brought to com pletion unfalteringly in the course o f the nineteenth an d tw entieth centuries, w ithin the context o f the culture o f m odernity, through the universal spread o f the nation state as the only m odel for the political organization o f com m uni­ ties. O ne after another, the O rthodox peo ples o f the Balkans rap ­ idly threw o ff the yoke o f su bjection to the Turks and form ed a state o f the m odern type. They dem an ded ecclesiastical independence, separation from the Ecum enical Patriarchate o f C onstantinople, and prom otion to a national church and, usually, to a patriarchate. A start w as m ade with the estab lish m en t o f a Greek state in a sm all portion o f the territories w here the Greeks had lived since ancient tim es. T his tiny and insignificant state, governed for the first d ecad es o f its existence by Bavarians and dom inated by an id e­ ology o f the aggressive pursuit o f rapid an d unboun ded (im itative) W esternization, decided unilaterally to detach from the Ecum eni­ cal Patriarchate those bish ops w hose dioceses in the territories it 68. From the Latin hostia, which m eans “victim” or “sacrifice” and expresses the Weatern understanding o f the Eucharist as primarily a sacrifice.

162

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

controlled, and by governm ent decree to set up an “au toceph alo u s” Greek church (1833).59 T h is church rem ained schism atic for nearly twenty years and w as only recognized in 1850 by an act o f con d e­ scen sion on the part o f the Ecum enical Patriarchate. There followed, by m ore gentle processes, the Ecum enical Pa­ triarchate’s recognition in 1879 o f the national Church o f Serbia as au toceph alous an d its elevation in 1920 to a patriarchate. In 1855 the national Church o f R om ania w as recognized as autoceph alous, and in 1925 it too w as raised to a patriarchate. After a long period in a state o f schism , the Bulgarian national church w as recognized a s autoceph alous in 1945 and as a patriarchate in 1953. In 1990 the Church o f G eorgia w as proclaim ed to be autoceph alous, an d the archbish op o f Tiflis assu m ed the title o f patriarch “o f all G eorgia.” The national O rthodox Church o f Poland has been recognized as au toceph alous since 1924, the national Church o f A lbania since 1937, and the national Church o f the Czech Republic an d Slovakia since 1998. The last n am ed has its seat either in the city o f Presov in Slovakia or in Prague in the Czech Republic, depending on the nationality o f the incum bent hierarch. T hu s Orthodoxy, while once having the sam e m ean in g as eccle­ sial catholicity, h as com e to be un d erstood prim arily a s a national religion (the state’s “prevailing religion,” a s the Greek C onstitution tellingly defines it on quantitative an d popu lation criteria). Eccle­ sial O rthodoxy is identified with the historical particularity o f each nation, with its political adventures and am bitions, and becom es essentially an expression o f the official state ideology. It unavoid­ ably becom es su bject to the aim s o f the sta te ’s internal and external policies, su pportin g (or “san ctifyin g”) the u se o f force in m ilitary confrontations. If at on e tim e the word Orthodoxy m an ifested the enduring p res­ ence o f catholicity in each local church, and its defense; if at one tim e it raised the existential event (historically, culturally, in tan ­ gible em bodied form ) to the level o f a globalized ideal, today the sam e word Orthodoxy refers to a useful tool em ployed by n ation ­ 69. See further my Orthodoxy and the West (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Or­ thodox Press, 2006), chap. 15.

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

163

alists to safeguard the existence and power o f n ation alism in the state. This is a bitter fruit, a very bitter fruit, o f the religionization o f the ecclesial event both in the East and in the W est.

4.5. Pietism H istorically we use the word pietism w ithin the context o f religious tradition s to refer to organized m ovem ents, or sim ply trends, that con stitute perh aps the clearest expression o f hum an ity’s instinctive need for religion. Pietism bypasses or relativizes “d o gm a” (the intellect’s claim to investigate m etaphysical en igm as) with a view to attaining the ch ief goal o f religiosity: the securing o f psychological certainty with re­ gard to individual salvation. It aim s at w inning salvation through em otional exaltation, m ystical experiences, or objectively m easu r­ able achievem ents o f virtue, o f practical fidelity to religious p re­ c ep ts— through practical reverence for the sacred, which is piety. A s a ph enom enon o f the religious life, pietism certainly p re­ ceded the ecclesial event. In the early years o f the Church’s ap p ear­ ance, the ch ief pietistic trend w as that o f gnosticism . G nosticism derived its nam e from the fact that w hat it chiefly prom ised w as u nm ediated know ledge (epopteia) o f transcen den t reality, a knowl­ edge, however, only attainable by applying o n ese lf as an individual to practical form s o f piety. T hese pietistic practices, like the theoretical teachings o f the various gro u p s or tradition s that together m ade up gnosticism , were a typical product o f religious syncretism — an am algam o f ele­ m ents from the an cient Greek world, Judaism , and the religions o f the Near East. W ith the appearance o f the C hristian Church, there im m ediately also arose (from as early a s the days o f the ap o stles them selves) “C hristian ” expression s o f gn osticism . The m ost n ota­ ble were the gnostic gro u p s o f Saturnilus (around AD 130) in Syria, Basilides (in the sam e period) in Alexandria, Valentinus (after 160) in Rome and Cyprus, M arcion (around 150) in Sinope o f Pontus and in Rome (with organized groups o f M arcionites spreading throughout the M iddle East), and Mani (around 2 4 0 ), a Persian

164

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

w hose teachin g (M anichaeism ) spread with aston ish in g success, reaching a s far a s China in the East and Spain in the W est. All these tren ds or m an ifestatio n s o f gn osticism had a num ber o f points in com m on. The m ost characteristic o f them m ay be su m ­ m arized as follows. The first point w as on tological dualism . This is the b elie f that there are two cau sal prin ciples for existent things: an evil God, who is pure m atter and the m an ipulator o f matter, who is the creator o f the visible w orld an d the au th o r o f evil in the world; an d a good God, who is pure spirit, w ithout any relation at all to the creation o f the m aterial world, and who has as h is work the liberation o f hum anity from the b on ds o f matter, that is, o f evil. The second point w as docetism . T his is the b elief that the good God sen t his son, Jesu s Christ, into the world with an apparent body (a body kata dokesin) to suffer an apparen t death on the cro ss in order to save hum anity by his teachin g and the salvific energy o f his cross. The third point, closely connected with the first two, w as an abhorrence o f m atter, o f the body, o f any pleasure, and especially o f the pleasure o f sexuality, alon g with the rejection o f im ages, holy relics, and the honor paid to the hum an perso n s o f the saints. The gn ostics believed th at by a system atic practice o f asceticism and by an intellectualist rationality they becam e capable o f liberation from the dem an ds o f m atter an d attained liken ess to God. The C hurch fought ag ain st gn osticism from the first step s o f its h is­ torical journey— m ost o f the inform ation we have abou t it derives from C hristian w ritings produced to com bat its opinions. Yet it su r­ vived historically in the C hristian world with aston ish in g tenacity through the centuries. W hat survived were its b asic poin ts and the tendencies, views, and ou tlooks related to it, in collective form s, w ith different n am es at different tim es b u t w ith the sam e experi­ ential identity. It is w orth n otin g in b rief outline the m ain stages o f th is h is­ torical developm ent. The com m unities o f M arcionites (the follow ers o f M arcion) flourished until the tim e o f C on stan tin e the G reat (fourth century)

The Religionization of the Ecclesial Event: Historical Overview

165

and rem ained active historically until the seventh century. They were then assim ilated by the P aulicians in the East an d by the M anichees in the West. The P au lician s em erged from the M arcion ites an d also from th e M e ssa lia n s (or M a ssa lia n s or Euchites), an o th er branch o f g n o sticism th at had ap p eared in the fourth century, m ainly w ithin the w orld o f m o n asticism , an d rep resen ted extrem e ten ­ d en cies o f a sc etic ism an d en th u siasm . T he M essalian s survived a t le ast u n til the seven th cen tu ry in Syria an d A sia M inor. They rejected or w ere co n tem p tu o u s o f the C hurch’s sac ram en ts an d rites. They aim ed at ato m ic union w ith G od th rou gh atom ic a s ­ ceticism an d ato m ic prayer or th rou gh d an cin g th at led to th e ec sta sy o f the atom ic in dividual. From the seventh century onward, the m ovem ent th at contin­ ued the tradition o f gn osticism in A sia Minor, Syria, M esopotam ia, and Thrace w as now the Paulicians. They derived their nam e from the special honor they gave to the A postle Paul and his teaching. They accepted M arcion’s on tological du alism and C hrist’s docetic hum an presence, an d rejected the H ebrew tradition an d the Old Testam ent, together with the ecclesiastical rites, the clergy, the churches, the icons, and the veneration o f the saints. The only p eo ­ ple they called “C h ristian s” were them selves; th ose who belonged to the Church were sim ply called “Rom ans,” bereft o f grace and sa l­ vation. T hese are features that clearly point to the religious denial o f the ecclesial event an d its in stitutional expression s, an d to its replacem ent by a pietistic individualism — the route o f atom ic ac­ cess to salvation. In the tenth century th is gn ostic-M anich aean pietism was tran splan ted by the P au lician s in to Bulgaria, u nder the form o f gro u p s or com m u n ities th at called th em selves Bogom ils (which in B ulgarian m ean s “lovers o f G od”). They preserved all the d o c ­ trin es o f the P aulicians, developin g in ad d itio n an extrem e asc eti­ cism . They ab h orred m arriage, lo ath ed sexuality, ab stain ed from m eat, an d celeb rated b ap tism w ith ou t su b m ersio n in water, only by the laying on o f h an ds. W ithin three centuries, from the tenth to the thirteen th , the Bogom ils had developed in to a pow erful m ovem ent with an im pressive expan sio n both tow ard the East

166

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

(w here they w ere usu ally called N eom anichees) an d tow ard the W est (w here in the first h a lf o f th e tw elfth century they were given the n am e C ath ars, or “pure o n e s”). The C athar heresy, with all the above m arks o f a M anichaeistic pietism , presented n ot only a religious b u t also a seriou s social challenge to the peo ples o f the W est in the M iddle A ges— a real scourge. The heresy’s aggressive op position to the Church’s in stitu ­ tion s echoed the u n h appin ess o f a large num ber o f people ab ou t the worldly, authoritarian character o f th ese in stitutions, the taxes that were im posed on the laity, the different life o f the clergy and their provocative opulence. T hese anticlerical and an tipapal ten­ den cies favored the dem and for an objectively assu red and m easu r­ able “purity,” which w as easily identified with an aversion to sexu ­ ality an d en ded up as a fanatical dissem in ation o f the rejection o f m arriage. Such facts created the feeling th at the powerful C athar trend threatened the coh esion and even the biological survival o f the com m unities where they predom inated. Rom an C atholicism , the prevailing authority in the W est, reacted forcefully again st the heresy o f the Cathars, at first with banishm ent, confiscation o f property, and excom m unication; later with im prisonm ent and torture; an d finally with death at the stake, inflicted on the heretics by the Holy Inquisition, an in stitution founded by Pope Gregory IX in April 1233. The gn osticism o f the early C hristian centuries (and chiefly Manichaeism ) w as continued and spread historically by the M arcionites and M essalians. From the latter cam e the Paulicians, from the Paulicians the Bogom ils, and from the Bogom ils the Cathars. The h is­ torical succession is continuous, w ithout gaps. There are historian s who regard the C athars as forerunners o f Protestan tism and see in the great religious trends generated by the Reform ation, in puritanism an d pietism , the continuation an d survival o f a M anichaeistic p ietism up to our own days.70 70. See Vasileios Stephanidis, Ekkiesiastike Historia, 3rd ed. (Athens: Astir, 1970), 571, 575; Vlasios Pheidas, Ekkiesiastike Historia, vol. 2 (Athens, 1994), 452, 458ff.; Steven Runciman, The Medieval Manichee: A Study o f the Chris­ tian Dualist Heresy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947); E. Voege-

The R e ligionization of the Ecclesial Event; Historical Overview

167

Puritanism is not confined to group s o f English Reform ed Prot­ estan ts in the sixteenth century who w anted their C alvinism to be kept “pure,” uncontam in ated by any residue from Rom an C atholi­ cism — n or is Puritanism sim ply a verbal echo o f the C athar heresy.71 It is the real con tinuation o f their ou tlook an d practice, m anifest in a host o f “con fession al” group s an d m ovem ents in the Protestant world to th is day. Puritanism is the m atrix th at h as form ed the d is­ tinguishing identity o f Presbyterians, C ongregationalists, A n abap­ tists, Q uakers, B aptists, and so on. By an unyielding historical dynam ic, pietism too, transplan ted originally from A nglo-Saxon Puritanism to H olland and Germany, rapidly succeeded in crossin g the b ou n daries o f tradition s and “confessions.”72 Today pietism ap p ears to have im posed a M an­ ichaeistic du alism and a m oralistic individualism as a definitive el­ em en t o f C hristian life in every corner o f the world. It is not by chance that M anichaeism w as a syncretistic am algam o f elem ents o f deriving from several religious tradition s (Babylonian-Chaldaic, Zoroastrian, and Jew ish). T hese are elem ents that prim arily satisfied the d em an ds o f natural, instinctive religiosity: a w ar betw een light an d darkness, betw een good and evil, between spirit and matter, an d the p articipation o f the individual in th is war w ith the aim o f acquiring purity, righ teousn ess, and salvation as an atom ic individual— the eternal perpetu ation o f atom ic life. T his observation largely responds to the question : W hy did M anichaeism , in its various form s and under various n am es but always with the character o f individualistic pietism , constantly lin, “Religionsersatz. Die gnostischen Massenbewegungen unserer Zeit,” Wort und Wahrheit 15 (1960): 7; S. Lorenz and W. Schroder, “Manichaismus II,” in the Historisches Wbrterbuch der Philosophie, ed. Ritter, Griinder, and Gabriel, 5:715-16. But before the historians, Pascal had stated unequivocally, “Les Manicheens etaient les Lutheriens de leur temps, comme les Luth^riens sont les ManicWens du notre” (Ecrits sur la Grace, in vol. 11 o f Oeuvres completes de Blaise Pascal, ed. L. Brunschvicg [Paris: Hachette, 1914], 282). 71. Puritanismus, from the Latin purus, which m eans “clean.” 72. On the dominant influence o f Protestant pietism today on the life of the Orthodox churches in particular, see my Freedom o f Morality (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984), 119-36; and Orthodoxy and the West (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006), 217-50.

168

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

shadow the historical developm ent o f the Church? The answ er is clearly that th is parallel developm ent em b od ies in historical term s the con stant tem ptation o f religionization that m anifestly battles again st the ecclesial event. The tem ptation is that o f an objectified individualistic pietism ever present as an alternative proposal that

Chapter 5

su b stitu tes religion for the Church.

Orthodoxism: The Religionization of Ecclesial Orthodoxy

5.1. The Codified Fossilization o f Our Heritage We have seen that the authenticity o f the ecclesial event w as d e ­ fined in the early centuries as catholicity— in contrast to the fissiparou s nature o f heresy. Catholicity signifies the w holeness o f the ecclesial mode o f existence, th at is, the dynam ic indeterm inacy o f a shared (i.e., offered for com m on participatory verification) expe­ riential endorsem ent. The later definition o f authenticity as orthodoxy clearly aim s at objectifying this dynam ic indeterm inacy— at fixing au th en tic­ ity as the m easurable validity o f an acknow ledged apodictic proof. The word orthodoxy is form ed from orthe (“correct”) and doxa (“opinion,” “view,” “belief,” “con jecture”). It im m ediately su ggests the need for com m only accepted criteria o f correctness. Moreover, an op in ion /v iew /belief p resu p p o ses an atom ic (subjective) holder and som ethin g definite (defined, settled) that is held (the content o f the opin ion /view /belief). Consequently, in contrast to catholic­ ity, which is offered for shared participatory verification, orthodoxy clearly inclines toward the fam iliar polarity o f subjectivism -objectivism (which leads to the form ation o f a large variety o f “ism s,” that is, to the turning o f collective goals into ideologies). Ecclesial O rthodoxy (like every other later— political, ideologi­ cal, or con fession al— orthodoxy) h as m ade fidelity to the “proto-

169

170

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

type” a criterion o f correct opinion: fidelity to the original form ula­ tion s o f the prim ary experience. The p ast o f the ecclesial event is regarded a s a rounded whole, as a consum m ate value. The m em ori­ als o f th is p ast (in texts, liturgical form s, ascetical practices, organ i­ zational structures) acquire the statu s o f infallible stereotypes. O f un qu estion ed authority for the O rthodox churches is so-called ap ­ ostolic an d p atristic tradition. T hat is the location o f the certainty an d assuran ce that the individual p o sse sse s the correct faith, the correct teaching, the correct way o f life— for the safegu ardin g o f the ego. Assuredly, the testim on y both o f the “eyew itn esses” o f the histori­ cal “epiphany” o f C hrist an d o f the first “Fathers” o f the ecclesial body has very great significance for the authenticity o f the eccle­ sial event, seein g that th ese were the first to sh ape the linguistic, liturgical, an d organization al sem an tics o f the Christian gospel. The critical qu estion is w hether this very im portan t testim ony is approached with aw areness o f the dynam ic relativity that belongs to the sem an tics o f any sh ared experience, or w hether it is su b ordi­ nated to the instinctive need o f natural individuals to w rap th em ­ selves up with “infallible” objectivity— to their need for idols. For the O rthodox churches th e guarantee o f the authenticity o f their teaching, their worship, their organization, and their way o f life is not the experience (verified through sh aring in it) o f the operation o f the eucharistic body— it is not the “com m on struggle” to change on e’s mode o f existence. T he “criterion o f truth” is ob jec­ tified: it is the texts o f the Fathers, every tiny ph rase in these texts, even if detach ed from the con text th at gives a ph rase m eaning. It is the prescription s for the Liturgy precisely as laid down by the Fathers. It is the canons drawn u p by the Fathers (even w hen they contradict each other, or even th o se that, if really applicable, would excom m unicate all C hristians as a body). For m any O rthodox church es (and for m any m ore schism atic offsh oots), a criterion o f the ecclesial event’s authenticity is still the calen dar estab lish ed by the Fathers, the insistence, as already m en ­ tioned, that the celebration o f th e Church’s feast days should be tied to the astronom ically faulty (i.e., u seless for organizin g life in a

O rth o d o x ism : The Religionization of Ecclesial O rth o d o x y

171

realistic m anner) Julian calen dar o f the patristic age, the “O ld C al­ endar.” In the G reek-speaking world, it becam e the cu sto m som e tim e ago (for reason s that are obscure but are clearly coincidental and circum stan tial) for the daily liturgical cycle in the pasch al p e ­ riod o f G reat W eek to be celebrated back to front: O rthros is now su n g in the evening and V espers in the m orning, w ithout anyone thinking (or daring) to qu estion th is absurdity. For even in the case o f absurdity, once som ethin g h as been established, for whatever reason, it b ecom es yet an other “holy” tradition. A nd if this occurs in the official “order” o f ecclesial worship, one can im agine the host o f irrational n onsensical “trad ition s” that naturally follow an d are idolized by p o p u lar piety. The blessin g o f the w aters (a service that strikingly reveals the cosm ological dim en ­ sio n s o f salvation) acquires a form al distinction betw een a “great” b lessin g an d a “little” blessing, with rules ab ou t the sep arate u se o f each. The sacredn ess o f ob jects used in w orship is idolized by e s ­ tablish in g an addition al regulative deon tology a s a result o f which the objects perform their m iraculous work—vessels, vestm ents, or the space under the veils o f the altar. A nother m atter concerns assu ran ces ab o u t the fate o f the “so u l” after a person ’s death, a s ­ surances according to which eternity is m easured by th is w orld’s tw enty-four-hour cycle, an d so the “genuine” O rthodox know p re­ cisely where the “so u l” go es on the third day, where on the ninth, and where on the fortieth or in the interval betw een Easter and Pentecost! All th is “objective” inform ation con stitutes ecclesial “tradition ” for m any religious people, even if it m anifestly perpetu ­ ates elem en ts o f m agical im aginings ab ou t the underworld. Even w hen there is som e vital contem porary problem that was unknown and u n susp ected in the age o f the Fathers becau se it has arisen as a result o f later developm en ts and conditions, O rthodox theologian s and p asto rs seek a “solution ” in sn ip pets o f patristic texts—ju st as the C om m unist faithful sought a “solution ” in q u o ta­ tion s from M arx and Lenin. T he sam e need for objective security clearly m otivates both the form er and the latter— a need rather to safeguard the psychological ego with the arm or o f a specific bioth e­ ory. C hristian truth (the gospel o f the universal hum an h ope for the freedom o f hum an existence from tim e, space, decay, and death ) is

172

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

identified with a fossilized language, with idolized codified do c­ trines, with sclerotic liturgical form s, with unrealistic can on s defin­ ing sins, with unchanging institutions. And the genu in eness o f all these thin gs (“O rthodoxy”) is an expression only o f their historicity, o f fidelity to the p ast— to the apostolic, the patristic, an d even the recent p ast.73

O rth o d o x ism : The Religionization of Ecclesial O rt h o d o x y

173

the individual in the arm or o f “objective” certainties). The O rth o­ dox churches today take up a position that differs only superficially: they express the C hristian w itn ess in a language that is in com pat­ ible with contem porary scientific cosm ology and anthropology, but they do not fight again st the findings o f the sciences, nor do they think o f giving th ese findings a m eaning on the b asis o f ecclesial experience.

Like the apo stles, the Fathers o f the Church gave their testim ony to ecclesial experience in the language o f their age. A nd the lim ­ its o f language are the lim its o f w hat is know able in each age, the lim its o f hum anity’s u n d erstan din g o f the world a s sh aped by the scientific know ledge available in each age. The linguistic expression o f the Church’s w itn ess is tied to whatever worldview is current, but this is not the case with w hat is signified by th is w itness. The signifiers refer to the experience o f the m eaning o f the world and o f hum an experience, beyond the circum stan tial nature o f any par­ ticular worldview. They refer to the m ean in g estab lish ed by feeling on e’s way em pirically, that is, the m ean in g created by the effort to p articipate in a mode o f existence. The signifiers change, but never

Thus the language o f scientific dem onstration and the lan­ guage o f ecclesial experience present them selves today as asy m p­ totic: with regard to the reality o f the world and o f hum anity, the form er refers to a version corroborated by observation, the latter to a version th at is m ythic—w ithout th is an tith esis leading to conflict or creating the sligh test problem to the th eologian s an d pasto rs o f the O rthodox churches. No one is bothered if the churches endow a mythic, u n sub stan tiated cosm ology and an th ropology with m ean ­ ing. The ecclesiastical endow m ent o f reality with m ean in g is a s ­ serted to be sim ply a psychological recourse to religious myth, a withdrawal from w hat is real an d em pirically accessible, an escape into fantasy, into the projections o f instinctive desires.

the th in gs signified. Rom an C atholicism , institutionally ideologized as it w as, b e ­ cam e alarm ed at the tim e o f the R enaissance th at the new scientific worldview threatened to falsify Christian w itn ess as expressed in the language o f a geocentric cosm ology. Rom an C atholicism thus began a sen seless counteroffensive again st the m odern sciences (one that still continues openly or under the surface). It is m an i­ festly clear that Rom an C atholicism w as unable to distinguish b e ­

This is the ultim ate stage o f the religionization o f the so-called O rthodox churches.

tween the signifiers and the th in gs signified (an inability th at ac ­ com pan ies the need to idolize the signifiers with a view to cladding

73. The West’s decadent religious art has replaced the art of the Church’s icons and dominates Orthodox churches today, without even a single bishop thinking actively o f resisting this squalid alienation, which has now come to be regarded as “tradition.” The same is the case with the lamentable religious ba­ roque style (also o f Western origin) employed in the architecture of churches and the construction o f icon screens, and with the Western religious music that has replaced the Church’s singing. Even the m ost obvious expressions o f the alienation o f the ecclesial event, once they have prevailed for a couple o f centu­ ries or so in Orthodox churches, are imposed as “tradition."

There is no real (scientific) proof, not the slightest, that would al­ low us to su p p o se that there w as an initial ph ase, period, or evolu­ tionary stage o f physical reality that resem bled or w as an alogous to the so-called (in the language o f the Fathers) prelapsarian state o f the world. The possibility th at the world w as once m aterial but not su b ject to decay, an d that by the “fall” o f M an it becam e m aterial an d su b ject to decay (as alm o st all the Fathers claim ), h as no su p ­ port in w hat has been scientifically estab lish ed to date. M illions o f years before the appearance o f M an, the ph enom ­ enon o f life on earth w as governed by the sam e laws o f birth, devel­ opm ent, reproduction, decay, an d death that govern u s today—the sam e laws o f the evolutionary ascen t o f the m ultiplicity o f species, o f com plem entary m utual annihilation, o f the in stincts o f selfpreservation and pleasure, and o f the m ultifaceted m an ifestations o f sexuality. The possibility that “death cam e into the world through

174

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

M an,” or that sexuality is a result o f the “fall” o f M an, or that toil, decay, pain, and pleasure are also products o f M an’s disobedience to G od’s com m an dm en ts has no corresponding verification in the reality o f our known physical universe. Given the findings o f scientific research that have form ed the im age and u n d erstan din g o f physical reality that we p o ssess today, it is difficult for us to accept the sudden appearance o f M an a s a fully developed rational subject. The m aturing o f pow ers o f speech, the form ation o f a linguistic code, the developm ent o f intellectual and critical functions, the facility o f toolm aking, the rise o f a creative im agination, an d so on m u st have required a long evolutionary p ro­ cess. A t any rate, it is im possib le for us to envisage a stage in this very slow evolutionary process in which we could locate “A dam ,” if we su p p o se him, as is often done in the patristic texts, to have been a historical person .74 In the apostolic and patristic period, people had an u n derstan din g o f time and number rather different from th at which we have today. C hronological p eriods and their duration were accessible to em piri­ cal com prehension. M an’s first appearance on earth w as set then at seventy-four generations, at the m ost, before Christ (cf. Luke 3:23— 38), that is, at 1850 BC. And the end o f the world w as expected in the near future— Paul appears certain that he h im self w ould still be alive at C hrist’s second com ing (cf. 1 T h ess 4:15-17). People today know that from the genesis o f anim ate m atter to the appearance o f rational bein gs a billion years were needed. They know that the findings o f geologists, paleon tologists, and gen eticists have dated the appearance o f the hum an species a s we know it today (H om o sapien s sap ien s) to ab ou t 4 0 ,0 0 0 years ago. They know that our solar system h as still ab o u t five billion years to run. People today hear abou t d istan ces o f stars or galaxies from the earth m easured by the speed o f light an d expressed arith m eti­ cally in term s o f billions o f light years. They hear that our galaxy con tains a hundred billion sun s like our own an d that in the visible 74. For a fuller discussion o f the difficulty in reconciling the language o f the Church’s past with the findings of modern science, see my Relational Ontology (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2011), chap, 17,

O rth o d o x ism : The Religionization of Ecclesial O rth o d o x y

175

universe there are another ten billion sim ilar galaxies. People to ­ day know that the earth ’s population exceeds six billion and con se­ quently that the total num ber o f hum an bein gs who have lived up to now on the earth ’s crust and have been buried in its soil com es to m any billions. Such en orm ous tem poral, spatial, and num erical values change the assu m p tio n s o f m odern people in com parison with those o f people who lived in the apostolic and patristic periods. It would therefore be natural that there should also be significant in stances today o f changed assu m p tio n s in the language o f ecclesial w itness. If in the past, for exam ple, the expression “unto the ages o f ag es” evoked a sen se o f wonder, today the m easure o f tim e’s infinity is m ore likely to create a sen se o f duration threatening to intelligent life. It does not in any way seem a gift or charism to hum an beings that they sh ould still continue to exist after five hundred billion years in a tim e w ithout end and with no prospect o f en din g— the thought o f it creates panic rather than hope and consolation. It is incom parably m ore con soling that death should lead to oblivion rather than to “eternal life,” or to existence “unto the ages o f ages.” The gift and charism o f G od’s love would be a mode o f existence free from succession o f tim e, free from the m easure o f the “ages,” from a tem poral m easure. Ecclesial “Orthodoxy,” however, is concerned in its form s o f expression to m aintain the stereotypes o f the p ast w ithout any change. It is not concerned to preach to people the gospel o f hope and consolation. It seeks its identity in the idolization o f the signi­ f i e s , not in the struggle to lay hold o f the thin gs signified. Ecclesial “O rthodoxy” seem s to be thoroughly im prisoned in the language o f the quantitative version o f tim e and the dim en ­ sional version o f the infinite. It correspondingly relies on the lan­ guage and outlook o f w hat in other periods were chiefly juridical priorities: on the psychological syndrom e o f m aster-slave relations. This is why it also in sists on an excessive repetition o f su pplication s (to the point o f satiety) for the “pardon,” “forgiveness,” “purging,” and “purifying” o f people from “sins,” “transgressions,” “crim es,” “faults,” and “failings,” and for their “w ashing clean ” from “dirt,” "m ire,” and “filth.” People perh aps find it difficult to identify such

176

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

a burden o f specific culpability in their personal lives. The prior­ ity given to the in dividual’s guilt, however— the rem ission even o f an individual’s imaginary, n onexistent sin s— is m ore a response to instinctive religious need. In the practice o f ecclesial “Orthodoxy,” the prim ary and d o m i­ nant dem an d is not for a relationship with G od, for the struggle o f love a s a eucharistic m ode o f existence. The desire d o es not p re­ dom inate that a person sh ould live w ith G od at least the fullness an d rapture th at he lives in the experience o f love w ith another per­ so n — a fullness and rapture that are uniquely personal, unlike and unrepeatable, and m utually exclusive: that is, free from any com ­ parison with any erotic relations w hatsoever o f other person s with the sam e person o f God. N othing o f this kind predom inates. The prim ary (prevailing) dem an d in the language o f ecclesial O rth o­ doxy” today is for “mercy,” for forgiveness o f indeterm inate guilt, o f u nspecified offenses.

5.2. Confessionalism In th e lan gu age o f the early Church, the w ord confession (homolog ia ) m eant the public declaration o f an attestation b ased on experi­ ence, the bearin g o f w itness to certainties arisin g from the direct experience o f personal relationship.75 A gainst the background o f th is early m eaning, the word confes­ so r durin g the centuries o f persecu tion b ecam e synonym ous with the word m artyr.76 By sacrificing their life the m artyrs w itn essed/ 75. Cf. Peter’s confession in Matt 16:16: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” and in John 6:68-69; cf. also Matt 10:32: “Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven”; 1 Tim 6:12: “You made the good confession in the presence o f many witnesses.” 76. Cf. Justin Martyr, First Apology 11 (PG 6:341B): “Confess they are Chris­ tians, knowing that the penalty for confessing this is death”; Historia monachorum in Aegypto 19.1-2 (PG 34:1171A): “There was a m onk called Apollonius During the persecution this father encouraged the confessors of Christ and succeeded in making many o f them martyrs” (Norman Russell, trans., The Lives o f the Desert Fathers, chap. 19 [Kalamazoo, Ml: Cistercian Publications, 1980], 103).

O rth o d o x ism : The Religionization of Ecclesial O rth o d o x y

177

con fessed/con firm ed that their relationship with C hrist w as m ore precious to them than biological survival. T he m artyrs were called “con fessors o f the faith”; their m artyrdom attested to an d revealed their faith /tru st in the gospel o f C hrist—an d tru st is only possible as a result o f a personal relationship. W hen the m ean in g o f the word fa ith (that which correspon ds to it in actual experience) changes, then the sen se o f the word confession is also altered. If faith ceases to signify the struggle to attain trust, if it com es to be identified with the acceptance by the individual o f theoretical/in tellectual form ulations (an acceptance synonym ous now with conviction and psychological certainty), then con fession too still rem ain s a p u b ­ lic proclam ation but not on e o f testim on y from experience. It b e­ com es a proclam ation o f private convictions, individual acceptance o f “prin cip les” or “theses,” and individual assen t to psychological “certainties.” T hu s con fession en ds up by being defined as “official and public proclam ation o f the acceptance o f religious dogm a,”77 or an “official statem en t by som eon e o f the d o gm as o f the religious or m ore generally ideological faith accepted by him.”78 The codification o f the form ulations o f ecclesial experience w as a t­ tem pted with the d ecision s o f the ecum enical councils. Even the First Ecum enical Council (325) drew up a confession o f fa ith with a view to safegu ardin g the expression o f this experience from sig ­ nifiers that were deceptive or capab le o f various interpretations. However, the con fession that w as then codified functioned (and we have clear in dication s o f this) as a definition (horos, a fixing o f boun daries around com m on experience) and not as a su b stitu te for experience. C onfession functioned as sym bol: an occasion for put­ ting together (sym -ballein), for coordinatin g personal approach es to the com m on struggle o f ecclesial experience, w ithout the sign i­ fying occasion bein g m ade in dependent o f the signified (and presu pposition al) experience. Given hum an ity’s instinctive religious need for “objective” m etaphysical certainties, however, on e can understand how easily 77. Georgios D. Babiniotis, Lexiko tes neas Ellenikesglossas, 3rd ed. (Athens: Kentro Lexikologias, 2008), s.v. homologia. 78. Ibid.

178

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

the use o f definitions an d sym bols o f com m on experience can b e ­ com e in dependent o f experience. The codified sym bolic form ula­ tion s in their linguistic form an d in their sem antic content com e to be identified with “truth.” W hoever relies on the form an d u nder­ stan d s the content o f the form ulations “p o sse sse s” truth in a pri­ vate fashion; such a person is the m aster and ow ner o f truth. T hus the ego o f n atural individualism is clad in the arm or o f dogm atic religious certainties (o f supern atural authority), an d the ecclesial struggle o f the em pirical sh aring o f truth is forgotten even as a stan ­ dard for identifying alienation. The con fession o f faith a s a declaration o f person al (intellectual and psychological) convictions an d an acceptance o f in stitution ­ ally guaranteed, infallible form ulations is a sym ptom o f alienation that follow s the historical journey o f the Church. T he m ost extrem e c ases o f the sym ptom occur dram atically w ithin the context o f the underdeveloped w orld o f m edieval W estern European C hristen­ dom . But with the gradual change o f the cultural paradigm , the O r­ thodox East too becam e firmly if unconsciously su b ject to the now dom inant ideologized u n d erstan din g o f faith. Ideologization reached its apogee in both the W est and the East with the advent o f the Protestant Reform ation. H aving depreciated the in stitutional expression s o f the ecclesial event in the highest degree, the R eform ation favored in the high est degree (i.e., took to its extrem e con sequen ces) the religious individualism inherent in the Rom an Catholic W est. It did th is through its em ph asis on the personal faith o f the individual (so la fide), on the objective validity o f that faith (fidei ratio), and on the need to guarantee its objectiv­ ity by official (codified) “con fession s” o f faith. From its ou tset every P rotestant m ovem ent w as b ased on a con­ fessio n . In the confession were set down the m ovem ent’s convic­ tion s: a specific way o f interpreting the Christian gospel (and o f applying th is interpretation in practice). All who accepted these convictions con stituted the m em bers o f th at reform ed church— the convictions expressed in that specific con fession were the defini­ tion and presupposition o f m em bership. For that reason the w ords

O rth o d o x ism : The Religionization of Ecclesial O rt h o d o x y

179

church and confession cam e to have the sam e m ean in g in the Prot­ estan t w orld— the w ords functioned as synonym s. Luther’s follow ers (Lutheranism ) defined their faith by the A ugsburg Confession (Confessio A u gu stan a, 1530). Zwingli’s follow­ ers b ased them selves on the con fession called the Fidei ratio (1530), which Zwingli h im self had drawn up. The Protestan ts o f the cities o f Strasbourg, Constance, M em m ingen, an d Lindau expressed their faith by the Tetrapolitan Confession (Confessio Tetrapolitana) o f Bucer an d C apito (1530). There followed in chronological sequence the Confessio Basiliensis (1534), the Confessio Helvetica (1536), the Confessio G allicana (Paris, 1559), the Confessio Scotica (1560), the Confessio Belgica (1561), and the W estm inster Confession (1646). The alienation o f ecclesial faith in codified con fession s o f convic­ tion s w as also im m ediately adopted by Rom an C atholicism with a view to com batin g the Protestant Reform ation on the ideologi­ cal level. The Council o f Trent (Concilium Tridentinum), which w as held from 1546 to 1563, issued a s its reply to P rotestantism the Professio Tridentina (1564), w hose eleven articles every Roman Catholic m ust accept a s his personal convictions. O n this con fes­ sional b asis are su m m arized the d o gm as o f the Rom an Catholic Church, that is, w hat any Rom an Catholic is “boun d to believe” (die Glaubenspflicht), the authentic, absolutely authoritative, and infallible proclam ation o f the word o f God (die authentische und authoritative, unfehlbare Verkiindigung des Wortes G ottes).79 To th is fun dam en tal core are add ed all the papal pron ou n ce­ m en ts on m atters o f faith, w hose ideological/confession al char­ acter w as clearly m an ifested by the character attributed to them by the First Vatican C ouncil (1870). The concern here is not for form ulations o f the experience o f the ecclesial body but for “re­ vealed tru th s” (O jfenbarungsw ahrheiten— doctrina et veritas divinitus revelata),80 infallible in them selves (ex se se )— '“not through

79. J. R. Geiselmann, “Dogma,” in Handbuch theologischer Grundbegriffe, ed. H. Frie« (Munich: Kdtel-Verlag, 1962), 229.

80. Ibid., 230.

180

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

the con sen t o f the C hurch”—w hen the Roman p o n tiff m akes p ro­ nouncem en ts ex cathedra.81 The idolization o f form ulation s— m aking the intellectual and psychological reception o f the signifiers auton om ous, and d etach ­ ing this reception from the (always shared) experience o f the thin gs signified—w as an original m ark o f Roman Catholicism . Protestant­ ism took this idolization to its logical conclusion, also dragging Rom an C atholicism , the originator o f the sym ptom , with it into a hardening o f the ideological version o f the Church’s gospel. The conflict between the two expression s o f the Church’s religioniza­ tion in the W est w as conducted on a level o f ab stract theoretical “convictions,” “principles,” and “do ctrin es” drawn up in codified “confessions.” W hat lies behind the form o f the “con fession ” is m anifestly the com m on individualistic dem and for religious certainties w rapped up in in stitutional authority. T hat is why the challenging o f these certainties becom es a battle betw een institutions. And so we have long periods o f arm ed conflict— the Thirty Years’ W ar (1618-48) and religious w ars that still endured at the end o f the tw entieth century (e.g., Ireland)— that have set the stam p o f their indelible horror on W estern European Man. The W estern conflict w as dram atically “decan ted” into the O rth o­ dox East. The Greek areas ruled by the Turks, alon g with Russia, becam e a theater o f com petition betw een Rom an C atholics and P rotestan ts as to who would win the su pport o f the O rthodox again st their rival— or who would m anage m ore quickly to assim ­ ilate the O rthodox popu lation s to their own doctrine. To defend them selves the O rthodox had to ado pt the practice o f “con fession s” with the aim o f defining their difference from both Rom an C ath o­

O rth o d o x ism : The Religionization o f Ecclesial O rth o d o x y

181

The first (1601) w as com posed by M itrophanes K ritopoulos, later patriarch o f A lexandria, while he w as still a young m an studying in H elm stedt in Germany, in response to a request from his teach­ ers. The second (1629) w as w ritten by Cyril Loukaris, patriarch o f Constantinople, and raised a storm o f controversy throughout the O rthodox world. In refutation o f the C onfession o f Cyril Loukaris, con fession s were drawn up by Peter M oghila, m etropolitan o f Kiev (1643), and by D osith eos N otaras, patriarch o f Jeru salem (1672). O f th ese four confessions, the m ost typically O rthodox w as that o f M itrophanes K ritopoulos, in spite o f his ad o ptin g the system ­ atic academ ic style o f theological expression and the religionized version o f the ecclesial event. L oukaris’s con fession is a Calvinistic docum en t w ithout any attem pt at a preten se o f “O rthodoxy”— it rem ains an open historical question w hether Patriarch Cyril w as the real author o f the con fession (he h im self neither condem ned it nor adopted it). Because the con fession s o f Peter M oghila and D osith eos o f Jerusalem are intended to refute L oukaris’s C alvinis­ tic theses, they are led into ad o ptin g Rom an Catholic criteria, lan ­ guage, and argum ents. They are typical exam ples o f a W estern type o f “O rth odox” con fession s— exam ples o f O rthodoxism : the tran s­ form ation o f the Church’s gospel into an ideology.82 The m ost im portan t historical legacy o f the “O rth odox” con fes­ sions o f the seventeenth century w as precisely the tradition that they created by m aking the alienation o f the Church’s gospel into an ideology a self-evident m atter o f “m odernization.” A m on g both the Slavs an d the Greeks, the concept and practice o f “catechesis,” o f “dogm atic theology,” and o f “sym bolical texts” borrow ed the character that the internecine religious w ars in the W est had given

lics and Protestants. Four O rthodox con fession s o f faith were drawn up, by authors who gave their nam e to them , all o f them in the seventeenth century.

them — the O rthodox theology o f the last few centuries offers it­ se lf w ithout clear stan d ard s and criteria for distin guish in g ecclesial w itness from the proclam ation o f religious convictions and ideo­ logical principles obligatory for the “faithful.”

81. “Infallibilitate in magisterio, vi muneris sui gaudet Summus Pontifex quando ut supremus omnium christifidelium Pastor et Doctor, cuius est fratres suos in fide confirmare, doctrinam de fide vel de moribus tenendam definitive actus proclamat” (Canon 749, § 1, Codex luris Canonlci, 1983 ad,).

82. See the longer discussion and relevant bibliography in my Orthodoxy and the West, chap. 9, “The ‘Confessions o f Faith.’” See also the very striking his­ torical monograph by Gunnar Hering, Oikoumeniko Patriarcheio kai Europaike politlkl 1620-lfiiH (Athens: Ml FT, 1992).

182

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

T he O rthodox version o f the Church’s catholicity seem s now to have been replaced by an ideological an d radically religionized u n d erstan din g o f Orthodoxy.

5.3. The Reversal o f Ecclesial Criteria and Objectives T he difficulty o f distin guish in g the ecclesial event from a religion su bject to the in stincts is also the m ark o f O rthodoxism . W ith the appearance or pretense o f relying on tradition al Orthodoxy, one portion o f the Christian world seeks (or presen ts itse lf as p o sse ss­ ing) the m ost correct convictions, in com parison with other reli­ giou s “ism s”; the m ost con sisten t m orality (i.e., the m ost austere or “sp iritu al”); and the richest liturgical tradition (i.e., the m ost ef­ fective in arou sin g psychological em otions, in producin g a sen se o f exaltation and individualistic well-being). The criteria for d istin guish in g the Church’s m ysteries from m agical acts, for d istin guish in g the Church’s vital and life-giving com m union from a sen se o f ideological solidarity, seem to have been lost. It is im possib le to separate preaching (i.e., w itness) from propagan da, ecclesial ascetical practice from private morality, p a s­ toral care from psychological counseling, the com passion ate ser­ vice o f “binding an d lo osin g” from the grim exercise o f authority. T he eucharistic event an d the ecclesial w orship th at it en tails are regarded sim ply a s a religious rite. Both the pivotal operation s o f ecclesial life and its goals have m anifestly been tran spo sed from the com m on struggle to attain re­ latio n s o f faith /tru st (from life as love) to the pursuit o f personal gu aran tees— o f salvation, justification, reward, and the u n en d­ ing existence o f the ego. Consequently, no one is bothered with w hether the parish functions properly: the eucharistic com munity, the body o f the com m union o f persons. No bish op o f the O rthodox Church com es forward to show in a practical way that he regards it a denial o f the Church and its gospel th at “p arish es” exist with tens o f th o u san d s o f “parishioners,” th at parish churches have been transform ed into “branch offices" serving the religious n eeds o f the faceless m ass.

O rth o d o x ism : The Religionization o f Ecclesial O rt h o d o x y

183

W hen the Eucharist is transform ed into a religious rite (and so m etim es repeated on the sam e day w ithin the sam e church so as to be o f service to a greater num ber o f parish ioners) w ithout the sligh test active participation o f those “attending,” it is clear th at we m u st look for the Church elsewhere, not in the eucharistic com m u ­ nity, not in the body o f parishioners. For then not only the m yster­ ies o f baptism , m arriage, unction, and con fession but also funeral services, m em orials, and b lessin gs are m erely “ritu als” detached from any reality o f the Church, self-stan din g “m agical” ben edic­ tion s o f m om en ts in one’s private life. T hus inevitably the Church is identified w ith its professional em ployees, that is, w ith the clergy, and chiefly with the “higher” clergy (the bish ops) and with the buildings and offices w here the in stitution is based. A nd ecclesial “O rthodoxy” will be identified with the elem ents o f an idolized tradition, which is objectified in external features o f liturgical dress, form s o f worship, an d pious custom s. Som e, the m ore “dem anding,” will also seek the “O rth o­ dox” character o f the C hristian life in w hat has been received in a codified ideological form, such a s the stipu latio n s o f canon law. W hen the orthodoxy o f the ecclesial event is alienated into a religious O rthodoxism , it is no longer o f any concern (either to the clergy or the laity) that a body o f living com m union o f the m em ­ b ers/p artak ers o f the struggle sh ould exist, that the kingdom o f God sh ould be im aged “on earth as it is in heaven”: the triadic m ode o f existence. It is o f no concern that parish com m unities should exist, th at the bish op sh ould be a father an d not an adm inistrator or m anager. The only concern is th at each person should accept in­ dividually the ideological pron oun cem ents and canonical precepts o f O rthodoxism , and sh ould regard all the patristic citation s and sn ippets that su pport these pron oun cem ents and precepts as “in­ fallible.” For every perplexity an d every problem , answ ers should be sought in the p ast, b ecau se the Church is “O rth odox” only like a m useum piece (as the historical continuation o f a typology) w ith­ out any contem porary living experience capable o f illum inating perplexities and problem s.

184

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

In O rthodoxism , m on asticism b ecom es the “guardian ” o f the ty­ pological heritage, the guaran tor o f a fossilized authenticity. In this context m on asticism is no longer ab ou t leadin g the way in the vanguard o f the Church’s existential struggle. It is no longer the ascetical discipline o f strippin g away the ego so that existence may be shared as loving self-offering. Nor is it ab ou t m ourning a s the an ticipation o f death, a m ourning that liberates from conventions or h a lf m easu res an d confirm s the joy o f self-aban don m en t to di­ vine love. It is none o f this. M onasticism in O rthodoxism assu m es the role o f a prosecutor. The dress o f anachoresis, or withdrawal, b ecom es the uniform o f a policing authority. M onks police the fidelity o f clerics an d laypeople to th e letter o f p atristic p a ssa g e s an d ph rases, the letter o f O rth odox d o gm a an d “sacred canons.” They hunt ou t an d den oun ce every su sp icio n o f in frin gem en t o f the p recep ts o f can on law, every deviation from a canonically defin ed “O rthodoxy.” They accu se, reprim an d, and c astigate p atriarch s, sy n o ds an d arch b ish ops, b ish o p s an d presby­ ters grow n old in service, teach ers who p ro fess their faith, p reach ­ ers, evan gelists, an d oth ers p u rsu in g lives o f restraint. M onks claim in p ractice to be su p erio r to all ec clesiastical hierarchy, to be an infallible source o f au th en ticity w ithin the life o f the Church. It is th ese w ho decid e w hether the local b ish op sh ou ld be com ­ m em orated in the E uch arist (a com m em o ration th at c o n stitu tes visib le p articip atio n in th e eu ch aristic com m unity o f the catholic C hurch). T h at is, they replace the con ciliar b on d (the gu aran tee o f the living unity o f the w hole body) with their own ideological estim ates o f orthodox thin k in g an d th eir own can on ical a s s e s s ­ m en ts o f orthodox practice.83 In the Church the institutional expression s o f its life function precisely as p ossib ilities o f participation in the struggle o f rela­ 83. It is painful to see how far the monastic struggle has declined in com­ parison with the standard set by St. Isaac the Syrian in one of his exhortations: “You should know, brother, that the reason why we need to shut ourselves inside our cells is this: that we should not know the evil things that people do. We shall then regard them all as saints and as good through the purity o f our minds. If we become people who censure, chastise, judge, examine, retaliate and complain, what difference will there be between our settlement and that of the towns? (Discourse 58, in The Ascetic Writings o f Our Holy Father Isaac the Syrian, 239),

O rth o d o x ism : The Religionization of Ecclesial O rth o d o x y

185

tion s o f com m union, p ossib ilities o f w ithdraw al from individual­ istic com parison s o f abilities, charism s, or gifts. By contrast, in an ideologized O rthodoxism the in stitution s are ignored or held in contem pt, an d tru st is transform ed into ju d gin g the m erit and a u ­ thenticity o f individuals. If, for exam ple, som e new teach in g should arise, the adh eren ts o f O rthodoxism w ould not appeal to a synodical in stitution that w ould give ju dgm ent, on the b asis o f the experi­ ence o f every eucharistic body, on w hether the teachin g w as hereti­ cal. They would resort to som e fam ou s “elder” and to his individual ch arism —and he would offer them “objective” certainties th at are ideologically (i.e., psychologically) guaranteed. There is no lim it to the qu est for “objective” religious certain­ ties—the need for individuals to safegu ard them selves is in satia­ ble. For the so-called “ze alo ts” o f O rthodoxism (those who b oast o f their religious zeal), the title o f “O rth odox” is insufficient. They form sects o f the “genuine” O rthodox, and these sects further frag­ m ent in the con stan t search for “m ore genuine” m an ifestation s o f the atom ic zealotism o f the “genuine.” The search takes on the char­ acter o f rivalry in assertin g ever m ore extrem e p o sition s o f con ser­ vatism : a pathological insistence on the letter o f dogm atic ideologi­ cal statem en ts, regulative principles, and custom ary form s. The idolization o f the p ast, o f tradition, and o f “authen ticity” kills the appetite for the search (the dynam ic o f the struggle involved in the search) that differentiates the ecclesial event from an e sta b ­ lished religion. A sign o f th is deaden in g effect is also the fact that O rthodoxism do es not engender any art but only passively copies the art o f the past, u n d erstan din g art m erely as the decoration o f liturgical sp ace—a decoration th at is didactic or evocative o f pious sentim ents. H istorical experience confirm s that a m etaphysical search has the sam e significance as culture: it engenders art; it engenders cel­ ebration; it en gen ders the com m union o f persons. By contrast, every kind o f “certainty” and “conviction” (religious or even nihil­ istic) alien ates art into a com m odity for psychological con su m p­ tion; alienates celebration into a trade in sen tim en ts an d em otions, even to the extent o f being incorporated into the profit cycle o f the

186

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

com m ercial year; and alien ates the sh aring o f relations into a trad e­ o ff with regard to interests, a contractual safegu ardin g o f egocen­

O rth o d o x ism ; The Religionization of Ecclesial O rth o d o x y

187

ecclesial tradition som etim es reflects the tem ptation o f religious self-seeking, o f religious individualism — for only at the harvest will the w heat be separated from the w eeds sown in the sam e field.

tric concerns, a frigid loneliness. Christian experience (always ecclesial— never unshared) h as a l­ ways denounced sentim entality, m oralism , and the authoritarian idols o f truth as the m ost fundam ental underm ining o f the m eta­ physical quest. "T his is w hat it m ean s truly to find G od: to seek him w ithout ceasing, never to satiate your desire,” w rote that w ise interpreter o f ecclesial experience, Gregory o f N yssa.84 Truly to find God is to seek him not b ecau se he is useful to you in your private concerns, not so as to guarantee your “salvation,” not so that your ego sh ould exist in h appin ess “forever,” not so that you sh ould be rewarded according to the m erits o f your “virtues,” but to seek him

In the ecclesial event the participan ts continuously spell out again, always startin g from the beginning, the “h on or” o f the desire for God alone. It is an “h o n o r” because the un iqu en ess o f the desire signifies a charism o f erotic self-offering and self-abandonm ent to the “m anic yearning” that God has for each hum an person. Only a truly erotic desire is freed from self-interest, that is, from the in se­ curity o f being m ortal. A nd when erotic love gain s a foothold in the experiential exploration o f reciprocity, then freedom from deathdealing egocentrism is an “open d o o r” and “blessed honor.”

only becau se he is He W ho Is. Isaac the Syrian, an other giant o f experiential w isdom , adds, “Blessed be the honor o f the Lord, who op en s a door in front o f us, th at we m ight have no desire except to do his will.”85 W hatever m etaphysical gift we ask for ourselves p u ts us in a real quandary, an asphyxiatin g nightm are. If eternal life is all ab ou t an en dless prolon gation in tim e o f atom ic existence, it brings u s to a panicstricken cold sweat. A tom ic salvation can only be a torm ent if p eo ­ ple we love very m uch are excluded from it. The only m etaphysical request that gran ts us peace is “that we m ight have no desire except

Ecclesial experience speaks o f God as Bridegroom, a s lover o f hum ankind, not in a sym bolic or m etaphysical fashion. A realistic startin g point for this em pirical assertion (a tangible trace o f what transcen ds us) is beauty. The m etaph ysics o f ecclesial experience is not derived from apodictic syllogism s, or from som e psychological investm ent in a priori ideological argum ents. Only the beauty o f the world, a beauty interwoven with the astoun din g w isdom that con stitutes it in every m inute detail, can function as an invitationto-relation with a personal C ausal Principle, Word, and M eaning o f the world.

to do his will.” It is evident that in view o f the reality o f the O rthodoxism pre­ vailing today (or o f any other religionized version o f the ecclesial event), if we are to recover once again som e echo o f joy from a shared exploration o f m etaphysical hope, we m u st be delivered o f a heavy load o f ballast, difficult to shed, con sistin g o f fixed preconceptions, psychological preferences, and instinctive need, or else we will not find the rem edy for the panic o f death. Even the language o f the

We accept the world with our logical capacity a s a rational given—a s a rationally activated how, not a s a fixed static what. And the world is rational for u s not only becau se o f the astoun din g w is­ dom o f every m inute detail but also b ecau se o f its character o f being invitatory to relation, because o f the aesth etic pleasure by which it attracts u s— colors, sh apes, sounds, tactile quality, sm ells: qu ali­ ties o f the strength o f the invitatory logos, or rational principle, a principle that points to the existential oth erness (to the unique, dissim ilar, and u nrepeatable Person) o f the one who invites us. The w orld’s beauty p oin ts to its C reator ju st as a painting (potentially, not obligatorily) p oin ts to the artist, a piece o f m usic to the com ­ poser, or a poem to the poet. It d o es this in the way we recognize the personal oth erness o f an artist not by reading b iographies o f him

84. “This is truly to find God, always to seek him, never to find our desire satisfied . . . For it is not one thing to seek and another to find” (H. Musurillo, ed., On the Life o f Moses, in Gregorii Nysseni Opera, ed. W. Jaeger and H. Langerbeck [Leiden: Brill, 1964], vol. 7, pt. 1, p. 116; and On Ecclesiastes, Homily 7, in vol. 5 o f the sam e edition, pp. 400-1). 85. D iscourse 35, in The A scetic Writings o f Our Holy Father Isaac the Syrian.

188

A

g a in s t

R

e l ig io n

but by our personal relationship with his work, by the qu alities o f the invitatory rational principle. T he language o f ecclesial experience—the language o f O rth o­ doxy— is poetry. M oral precepts, ideological stereotypes, and sac ­ charine sen tim entality are the language o f instinctive religiosity— the language o f O rthodoxism . They bear no relation to the ecclesial event, the struggle o f a joyful m etaphysical quest.

5.4. The Popularity o f the Philokalia in the West The Philokalia is an an th ology o f p assage s from the w ritings o f thirty-six Fathers and ascetics o f the Eastern Church tradition, the tradition o f Greek Orthodoxy, from the fourth to the fifteenth cen­ tury. The texts selected for the an th ology all refer to the assu m p ­ tions, practice, and aim s o f the ascetical life. In particular they refer to ways o f prayer and especially the so-called noetic prayer (or “prayer o f the h eart”). T hese are ways o f gu id in g the ascetic to dispassion (ap ath eia, freedom from the n ecessities o f nature), to w atchfulness (nepsis, alertn ess an d sobriety o f the m ind), and fi­ nally to stilln ess (hesychia) an d contem plation (thedria)—to a sen se o f divine pleasure “w elling up ou t o f the heart.” The first collection o f this an th ology w as probably assem bled by M etropolitan M akarios N otaras o f Corinth (1731-1805); m any sim ilar an th ologies o f patristic texts circulated in m an uscript in the eighteenth century. In any event, he handed it over to the m onk N ikodem os o f the Holy M ountain (1749-1809), who undertook to check the patristic texts again st the m an uscripts preserved in the libraries o f the m on asteries o f M ount A thos and publish them . The Philokalia w as publish ed for the first tim e in Venice in 1782 an d again in A thens in 1893. In 1793, eleven years after its first appearance, it w as issued in a Slavonic tran slation by the fam ous R ussian m onk Paisii Velichkovskii (1722-94). The Slavonic ver­ sion o f the Philokalia w as a catalyst for the developm ent o f a dy­ nam ic m ovem ent am o n g Russian intellectuals. This w as nam ed the “Philokalic renaissance.” It w as a m ovem ent with many branches, which, beginn ing at a provincial m onastery (Optlna) and an early

O rth o d o x ism : The Religionization of Ecclesial O rth o d o x y

189

group o f Slavophile sch olars who m et there, later influenced great R ussian w riters and intellectuals, such as Tolstoy, Solovyov, and, chiefly, Dostoevsky.86 The m ost fruitful consequence, however, o f the “Philokalic re­ n aissan ce” occurred in the m id-tw entieth century with the Russian th eologian s an d sch olars who cam e to Europe and North A m erica after the Bolsheviks seized control in R ussia in 1917. This diaspora becam e the occasion for a dynam ic aw akening o f the alienated O rthodox conscience, the first since the fourteenth century, a real (and not ideological) confrontation o f O rthodoxy with the West. The su rprisin g unexpectedn ess o f this aw akening provoked im por­ tant developm ents m ore broadly in W estern com m unions, such as the active interest o f m ainly Rom an Catholic th eologian s in the study o f the Greek Fathers, O rthodox worship, and O rthodox art. The “n eopatristic” (as it w as called) reorientation o f Rom an Catholic theologian s found a hidden (but nevertheless encourag­ ing) expression in the clim ate o f the Second Vatican Council (196265), only to be stifled very rapidly by the conservative reaction o f the Vatican. The influence o f the Russian d iaspora w as m uch m ore fruitful in O rthodox countries (chiefly in Greece, Serbia, an d Ro­ m ania, and also in Lebanon), in augurating the so-called “th eologi­ cal sprin g” o f the 1960s.87 The third edition o f the Philokalia w as publish ed in Greece in 1957 in five volum es,88 and h as been frequently reprinted. A Rom anian translation by the Reverend Professor D um itru Stan iloae began to be publish ed in 1946 and w as com pleted in ten volum es in 1981. But the m ost asto n ish in g su ccess began w ith the first publication o f the Philokalia in the W est and its en th usiastic reception by a broad readership in every C hristian confession. Indeed, in 1951 the highly respected publish er Faber and Fa­ ber issued a two-volum e an th ology o f the Philokalia, translated by E. K adloubovsky an d G. E. H. Palmer. The pu b lish er’s reser­ 86. SeeC . Motchoulsky, Dostoievsky (Paris: Payot, 1963), 529. 87. See my Orthodoxy and the West, 211, 273-308. 88. Publlihed by Aitir and edited by Archimandrite Epiphanios Theodoropouloi.

190

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

vations ab ou t issuin g a work o f such “specialized in terest” (with an extrem ely doubtful financial return) were overcom e th an ks to the w arm su pport o f Faber’s publish in g advisor, the Nobel Prizew inning poet T. S. Eliot. The work89 m et with unexpected su ccess and went through eight reprints in ten years. Later the project w as com pleted by the tran slation o f the entire Greek original through the collaboration o f G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and K allistos Ware. The com plete text (still in progress) h as also been publish ed in paperback. Two years later, in 1953, the first French translation o f the Philokalia w as published, as a selection o f texts in a sm all pocket edi­ tion translated by Jean Gouillard, under the title Petite Philocalie de la priere du coeur. T his an th ology betrays the religious interest o f the an th ologist in the techn iques o f m ysticism . The su ccess o f the publication, however, and its repeated reprinting over several years were also in this instance a m atter o f surprise. In 1979 the A bbaye de B ellefon tain e b egan a new French ver­ sio n o f the w hole five-volum e G reek text o f the Philokalia, w hich w as com pleted in 1986. T he tra n slatio n w as m ade by the French p o et Ja cq u es Touraille, an O rth odox, an d the th eo lo gical su p erv i­ sion o f the edition w as u n d ertak en by P rotopresbyter P rofessor B oris Bobrinskoy. T he w ork w as origin ally p u b lish ed in eleven fascicu les, w hich in 1995 w ere issu e d in two v o lu m es by D escl£e de Brouwer. C oncise version s o f the Philokalia, in a single volum e, were p u b ­ lished in Italian (La Filokalia: Am ore della bellezza, tran slated by Giovanni Vannucci and publish ed by Libreria Editrice Fiorentina in 1998), in Spanish (La filocalia de la oracion de Je su s, publish ed in Salam an ca by Slguem e in 1998 [7 reprints] and in Barcelona by Claret in 1986 [1 reprint]), and in Portuguese (Pequena Filocalia: O livro classico da Igreja Oriental, tran slated by Jos£ Com blin, C arlos M esters, and M aria Em ilia Ferreira and publish ed by Edi^oes Pau­

O rth od ox ism : The Religionization of Ecclesial O rt h o d o x y

191

A striking sequel to the broad interest show n in tran slation s o f the Philokalia is also the extensive literature on Philokalian topics p u b ­ lished in European langu ages.90 T his is in ad d ition to specialized articles an d scholarly references in a wide variety o f publications. The m ost significant result, however, is probably the in troduc­ tion to W estern com m union s o f a new language: words, expres­ sions, and even them es drawn from the texts o f the Philokalia. “W atchfulness” (nepsis), “d isp assio n ” (apath eia), “noetic prayer,” “divine illum ination,” the “contem plation o f God,” the “con tem pla­ tive mind,” the “spiritual sen ses,” the “vision o f G od” (theoptia), and a host o f sim ilar term s and expression s entered into the language o f religiously m inded people in the W est. O ne could perh aps a t­ tribute th is fact to the m ore general interest that people im bued with W estern m odernity (and satiated with a legalistic and intellectualistic religiosity) have in various form s o f “esotericism ” deriv­ ing from the (chiefly Far) East. O r one m ight attribute the interest in the Philokalia to som e kind o f resonance or affinity o f the texts with the long habituation o f W estern people to the individualistic pietism an d qu ietism that historically have prevailed in the West. At any rate, the approval an d en th usiastic reception o f the Philo­ kalia by religious W esterners raises an im portan t question: If the critical difference betw een O rthodoxy and the W est is the ecclesiocentric character o f the form er and the in stitutionalized reli­ gion ization o f the latter (the individualism o f natural religion that historical circum stan ces im posed on the W est), then the W est’s en th u siasm for the Philokalia is not a contradiction in term s. M ight not the w isdom and experience o f the holy Fathers o f the Church, an th ologized in the Philokalia, be coordinated with the individual­ istic, religionized version o f C hristianity that h as form ed the W est’s criteria and m ental outlook?

linas, Brazil, 1984).

T he need for a critical resp o n se to th ese q u e stio n s is an u r­ gen t one for an overridin g reaso n : b ecau se the im perceptib le (an d a s a rule u n co n scio u s) slid e o f ecclesial O rth odoxy too into

89. Writings from the Philokalia on Prayer o f the Heart, translated from the Russian text Dobrotolubiye by E. Kadloubovsky and G. E. H. Palmer (London: Faber and Faber, 1951).

90. For an informative discussion on the influence o f the Philokalia in West­ ern Europe, aee Fr. Placide Deseille, La spirituality orthodoxe et la Philocalie (Parii: Albin Michel, 2003), vol. 3, pt. 4, p. 249ff.

192

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

O rth od ox ism : The Religionization of Ecclesial O rth o d o x y

193

religio n ization , into a relig io u s O rth odoxism , had to a large d e ­ gree alread y been acco m p lish ed w hen the Philokalia w as co m ­ p iled an d p u b lish ed for th e first tim e. Consequently, a properly critical ap p ro ach will also exam in e the reaso n s why the O rth odox too approved o f the Philokalia w ith such en th u siasm in a period w hen th eir p rio ritie s w ere ch iefly religio u s an d in dividu alistic. We sh ou ld con trol th e likely reso n an ce o f the tex ts o f the Philo­ kalia w ith the relig io u s in d iv id u alism o f O rth o d o xism — not so th at we sh ou ld c ast any d o u b ts on the p atristic tex ts th em selves (the record, so p recio u s for the ecclesial stru ggle, o f the F ath ers’ w itn ess) b u t p erh ap s on the reaso n s for th eir selection , the aim s or criteria th at governed th e iso latio n o f sp ecific p a ssa g e s from

heart, with the persistent individual (psychosom atic) practice o f asceticism , a person has been saved— nothing else is needed. There is no need for p articip atio n in a body o f relatio n s o f loving com m u n ion . The aim is not to sh are in existen ce an d life. In dividual ascetical practice is su fficien t to lead a p erso n to disp assio n , to the visio n o f G od, to im m ortality, an d to d eific atio n — all th at is n eeded is an ath letic strivin g to attain p erso n al ach iev e­ m en ts ranked axiologically by ord er o f m erit. W hat is p roclaim ed w ith out any d isg u ise w h atsoever is love o f se lf (p h ila u tia ). “The good love o f s e lf” is explicitly extolled: “th at w hich is tru e w or­ ship, genuin ely p leasin g to G od, the careful cultivation o f the soul th rou gh the virtu es.”

th eir origin al context.

The reader will look in vain in the five volum es o f the Philoka­ lia for even an indirect hint that the only possibility o f entry into the kingdom , the only path tow ard realizing the C hristian gospel, is participation in the Church. On the contrary, the reader is per­ su aded on every page that salvation is won by an exclusively private effort: the keeping o f the com m an dm en ts, the guarding o f the in­ tellect, noetic prayer.

A control o f this kind leads one im m ediately to a su rprisin g fact: the reader is asto u n ded to discover th at nowhere in the five vol­ u m es o f the com plete Greek edition o f the Philokalia is there any reference to the ecclesial event, to the presu ppo sitio n o f the g o s­ p el’s salvation. The word church ap p ears thirty-six tim es in the five volum es, but only to indicate the in stitution or the building for liturgical w orship— never to indicate the eucharistic body, the struggle to im age the loving com m union o f the Triadic prototype: “W hen you leave the church, go and pray in your cell”; “Afflicted by indolence, he absen ted h im self from the church and the canon”; “A s a w ise theologian, deliver a discou rse w ithin the great church”; “Som e praised the ou tlook and teachin g o f the Church”; “He who seeks the Lord will utter good w ords in the church o f the faithful for the benefit o f m any”; “The Church founded from the beginning by the ap o stles”; “We are bound to accept the Church’s d o gm as by a sure faith and by qu estion in g th o se who are experienced”; and so on and so forth. Participation in the ecclesial event (in the eucharistic body, which realizes in a dynam ic fashion the Triadic mode o f existence) is totally ignored in the pages o f the Philokalia—there is not even a hint that it is this participation that con stitutes the go sp el’s salva­ tion. The go al/m o de o f the Philokalia’s contem plation and practice is presented as purely individualistic: if the m ind d escends into the

By such spiritual and intellectual work, and also with the successful practice o f the com m andm ents and the rest o f the m oral virtues, when through the invocation o f the all-holy Nam e warm th is engendered in the heart and its accom panying spiritual energy, on the one hand the passion s are consum ed . . . and on the other the intellect and the heart are cleansed and united with each o th e r . . . W ithout the deification o f the intellect, which is not the sam e as being sanctified, a person cannot be saved.91

O f course there are references in the Philokalia to the Church’s Eu­ charist. But com m union o f the eucharistic bread and wine is not 91. I do not give here precise references (identifying which texts the passages are from) for one overriding reason: I have no wish to perpetuate the appar­ ently arbitrary character o f the “Philokalic” selection—perhaps the authors of the phrases I have quoted refute or correct the views noted here in other texts that have not been chosen for the Philokalia. I therefore refer to the Philokalia as a whole, not to the particular authors represented in it.

194

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

referred to as participation in, and en grafting onto, the “dom inical body.” C om m union d o es not lead “those who eat together into a sam en ess o f way o f life.” T he poin t o f com m union here is the indi­ vidual “reception” o f a supern atural “grace” and “u nfadin g power.” The grace an d the power are located in the distributed “sp ecies”— they are discu ssed in a m anner th at clearly reflects the idea o f the “tran su b stan tiatio n ” (m etou siosis) o f the bread and wine. The logical conclusion to be drawn by the reader is that the Church is a useful in stitution for the Christian only b ecau se it (the in stitution an d its Liturgy) adm in isters the tran sm ission to the individual, through the sacram en ts, o f a supern atural (ontologically indeterm inate, as also in the language o f the W est) grace. The Eucharist, together with baptism , is presented in the Philokalia as a help to believers to pursue their individual ascetical effort, on which (chiefly, or even exclusively) their salvation depends. Individual asceticism , o f course, is also a presu ppo sitio n in the O rthodox (i.e., ecclesially centered) perspective for the salvation proclaim ed by the gospel. But it is a presu pposition as an actual participation in the com m on effort o f the existential mode that con ­ stitu tes the body o f the Church— not as a private struggle. Individ­ ual asceticism is not a value in itself; it do es not con stitute its own end. It is the practical realization /m an ifestation o f the individual’s free will to participate in the ecclesial com m union o f existence and life— a com m union that con sists o f a participated struggle for self­ transcendence an d self-offering. The Philokalia’s perspective lies at the op p osite pole to this. There the asceticism o f the individual is not only necessary but is a sufficient condition o f salvation. It p o s­ se sses clear characteristics o f an athletic struggle seen a s an end in itself, w hereas participation in the Church, identified with a private draw ing o f grace from the sacram en ts, is sim ply supportive o f the individual’s struggle. Broadly speakin g (in too ab stract a fashion), it m ay be said that in the Philokalia p assages have been selected (anthologized) from patristic texts in a m anner that is cut o ff from w hat is ontologically signified by ecclesial language. T he word salvation, for exam ple, in the language o f the Church m ean s that a person should exist in

O rth od ox ism : The Religionization of Ecclesial O rth o d o x y

195

term s o f freedom o f relation rather than in term s o f the n ecessi­ ties o f nature. In the Philokalia, however, the chosen p assag e s p re­ su p p o se that “salvation is received through attentiveness an d the gu ardin g o f the in tellect”— that is sufficient— and that “the life o f virtue is the sh ort path to salvation.” Everything is ju dged on the level o f individual achievem ent. The sam e is the case with the word love. In the language o f the Church, it signifies relation as the m ode o f the Trinity’s free­ dom from any existential finitude, existence a s self-transcendence and self-offering. In the p assages chosen by the Philokalia, love is the “m etropolis” o f individually p o ssessed virtu es— “love, self-re­ straint, an d prayer [always o f the individual] are capable o f deliver­ ing from the passion s.” In the Church’s language the “principle and h y po stasis” o f exis­ tence “w as the creative com m an d” o f him who called “out o f n on be­ ing into being.” “Eternal” life for hum an bein gs (i.e., freedom from tim e an d space) is their loving response to the creative com m and o f C hrist the Bridegroom ’s love. In the language o f the Philokalia, however, it is stated th at “virtue begets im m ortality” and for hu­ m an ity’s th eosis w hat suffices is “the descent o f the intellect into the heart.” Im m ortality is an attain m en t o f the individual, and th e­ osis begins an d en ds w ithin the b ou n daries o f ontic atom icity. The stark distinction adopted (an thologized) in the Philokalia b e­ tween two kinds o f faith is revealing: the faith o f the Church is one thing, and the faith o f (individual) contem plation is another. “The com m on faith o f the O rthodox, namely, correct dogm as concerning God an d his creatures, both intellectual and sensible, as, by the grace o f God, the Holy C atholic Church h as received, is one thing; and the faith o f contem plation, th at is, o f knowledge, which in no way is o p posed to the faith th at generates it, but rather m akes it m ore certain, is another.” The distinction is very clear, in spite o f the denial o f any o p ­ position or the assuran ce th at the second, the faith o f con tem pla­ tion, strengthen s the first, the faith o f the Church. The faith o f the Church m anifestly refers to the com m on convictions o f the O rth o­ dox becau se faith is identified explicitly with the “correct d o gm as”:

196

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

the codified form ulations that the in stitution “received” and that the faithful are obliged to accept as “dogm as.” This is a version o f truth precisely as ideology, which each person m ust internalize in­ dividually a s a totality o f a priori axiom atic principles guaranteed by the authenticity o f the in stitution —ju st as the W est, after A u­ gustine, u nderstood faith an d proclaim ed it. And this individualist, intellectualist, and psychological a p ­ proach to the collective convictions by the “faith o f contem plation,” which is experiential but also individualist, em erges from an in di­ vidual ascetic discipline (and not from participation in the mode o f the Church) as a reward for m eritorious attainm ents. It h as a charism atic character (“su pern atu ral” in an unexplained way) and com es to confirm individual convictions with greater certainty. We O rth odox like to accu se th e W est o f in stitu tio n al rigidity an d o f im p o sin g religio n ization on the ecclesial event, o f su b m ittin g it to in tellectu alism , m oralism , an d legalism . But th e case o f the Philokalia proves rath er th at the W est is “w ithin u s"— its h isto ri­ cal ou tgro w th s dwell in an o b scu re way in th e “inw ard” in stin c­ tive n eed o f every h u m an b ein g for in d iv idu alistic self-p ro tectio n an d assu ran ce. The ego likes to be self-sufficient. The urge for autonom y is built into our nature (is an existential presu pposition ). We want the provenance o f faith, o f know ledge, and o f salvation to com e from within us, to be our own achievem ent. Hence the historically decisive change o f direction with A ugustin e from eucharistic p ar­ ticipation to the “interiority” and “spiritu ality” o f the individual (in a closed self-referential autarky) is repeated a s the suprem e realiza­ tion o f C hristian authenticity in every age.92 Thus, in the absen ce o f the ecclesial gospel, the hum an person continues to be divided, separated into interiority and exteriority, which m ean s we inter­ pret the hum an person with the mode o f a eucharistic approach and “reference” radically reversed.

92. See also llias Papagiannopoulos, “From Augustine to Kant: The Oedipuslike program o f Western metaphysics,” in pt. 4, chap. 9 o f Epekeina tis apousias (Athens: Indiktos, 2005).

O rth o d o x ism : The Religionization of Ecclesial O rth o d o x y

197

The religionization o f the ecclesial event, then, signifies the (voluntary, o f course) withdrawal o f C hristians from the desire and goal o f life and their settlin g for a m inim um level o f survival. At least in a broad historical perspective, C hristianity show s itse lf to be obviously individualistic and unaw are o f its ecclesial dim en ­ sion — unaw are o f the existential goal o f relation, unaw are that its task is to im age the Triadic m odel o f life in the Church. Even love is p roclaim ed a s an atom ic virtu e, an ach ievem ent o f m oral behavior, a c o n seq u en ce o f eg o tistic “interiority.” T h is im p lies th at the other, every other, d o e s not exist for m e a s a real u n iqu e p erso n stan d in g o p p o site m e, a call to love th at p er­ so n w ith a view to know ing him an d th u s com in g to know my own o th ern ess. T he oth er ex ists only a s an o ccasio n for activ at­ in g my own “interiority,” th e self-referen tial ach ievem en t o f my “love”/virtu e. It is th u s p o ssib le for m e to have a clear b u t illu sory sen se o f certain ty th at I love th at p erso n even w hen my d ista n c ­ in g o f m y self from the existen tial o th ern ess o f h is p resen ce is co m p lete—when, for exam ple, sex or race o b literates for m e the o th e r’s perso n h o o d . In the Philokalia we read the follow ing co m ­ m an d m en t: “Q uickly expel from your heart the m em ory o f wife, m other, sister, or oth er d evout w om en . . .” The great p u b lish in g su ccess in the W est o f the tran slatio n s o f the Philokalia is a stro n g in dication o f the W estern read e r’s sen se o f fam iliarity with the ou tlook, criteria, and ord er o f p rio rities ex­ p resse d in th ese an th o lo g ized p assa g e s. A sep arate detailed study could also d em o n strate the sim ilarity (or identity) o f ou tlook, cri­ teria, and order o f prio rities betw een the texts o f the Philokalia an d St. N ikodem os o f the H oly M ou n tain ’s b oo k s on canon law (the Exom ologetarion and Pedalion) or h is pasto ral h an db o ok s (the Chrestoethia an d the H andbook o f C ounsel on Guarding the Five Sen ses). N ikodem os o f the Holy M ountain lived in a period when the W esternization o f Greek ecclesial O rthodoxy constituted, in the ap t expression o f Fr. G eorges Florovsky, a “Babylonian captivity,” o f which the O rthodox at that tim e were entirely unaware. The m ost im portant ecclesiastical figures battled again st the “deviation s” and

198

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

‘‘unorthodoxies,” as they called them , o f the W est, but they battled again st them w ith assu m p tio n s th at were entirely W estern—as if the p oin ts at issue were entirely ideological and concerned fidelity to the letter o f codified form ulas or legal precision abou t a “canoni­ cal” order. T he O rthodox East had no inkling that the W est for centuries had been in the grip not o f a heresy or a schism , a s the Church u n ­ derstood these from its historical past, but o f som ethin g radically different: the religionization o f the ecclesial event, the reversal o f the term s o f the Christian gospel. Thus, alth ough the East fought again st the Filioque and papal primacy, it nevertheless adopted the practice o f issuin g indulgences an d the in stitution o f titular bish­ ops. A nd it adm ired the “religious culture,” the individualistic piety, the intellectualist discipline, and the eth ical/legal “con sisten cy” o f the W est as som ethin g noble to be em ulated. It is only w ithin such a context that one can explain how and why N ikodem os, while living on the Holy M ountain (the “b astion o f O rthodoxy”), w as able to translate and publish a s “m ost edify­ ing” for the O rthodox two typically Rom an Catholic handbooks, the Spiritu al Exercises o f Ignatius Loyola, founder o f the Jesuit or­ der, and the Invisible W arfare o f Lorenzo Scupoli, a Theatine. It is only th u s that one can explain how and why in his w ritings he a d ­ opted the teachin g o f A nselm an d the Council o f Trent “on the sat­ isfaction o f divine justice through C hrist’s death on the cross, how and why (and indeed with the authority o f a conservative m onk o f M ount A thos) he im ported into the O rthodox East the legalism and codified religionization o f the L atin s’ presu ppo sitio n s for partici­

O rth od ox ism : The Religionization of Ecclesial O rth o d o x y

199

aim could it have?93 N aturally the question also arises w hether the official canonization o f a person (a canonization m ade du rin g the years o f O rthodoxy s Babylonian captivity” to religionization) gran ts am n esty to asp ects o f the sain t’s works that are flagrantly dom inated by the language, criteria, and outlook o f natural (in­ stinctive) religiosity. It d o es not com e within the com petence or power o f a historian, intellectual, or writer, however, to p a ss ju dgm en t on the term s o f institutional canonization. O ne can only offer the observation (ob ­ vious to all) that when a historical person is canonized, he d o es not cease also to be a child o f his age, to have expressed h im self in the language and in accordance with the assu m p tio n s o f his social and cultural environm ent. If we p ass over in silence the religious individualism that gov­ erns the selection o f the Philokalia’s texts, or the reversal o f the ecclesial perspective in the Pedalion, the Chrestoethia, and the H andbook o f Counsel, we are aban don in g the hope o f the Church’s gospel and throw ing away the com p ass that show s us the difference between the Church and a religion.

pation in the C hurch—a veritable nightm are. In the perso n o f a saint, the Church recognizes the m an ifestation o f the fruits o f the “kingdom ": m arks o f the realization o f the catholic hope o f its eucharistic body— it d o es not reward individual achieve­ m en ts or historic roles. And the critical pin pointin g o f asp ects o f W esternization in the works o f St. N ikodem os o f the Holy M oun­ tain is m eaningful because it serves the Church’s h ope—w hat other

93. For a more detailed discussion, see my Orthodoxy and the West, chap. 12. See also the refutation o f my position offered by the Sacred Community o f the Holy Mountain, “Anairesis ton peplanemenon theseon tou k. Chrestou (liannara peri tou en hagiois patros hemon Nikodemou tou Hagioreitou,” in the periodical Orthodoxe Martyria 40 (1993): 1-10, published in Nicosia, Cyprus.

i

Can the Ecclesial Event Ac co m m o d ate Natural Religiosity?

Chapter 6

Can the Ecclesial Event Accommodate Natural Religiosity?

The ecclesial event is operative (con stitutes an active reality) when it con tinues the mode (the vital dynam ic) o f the in carnation o f God, when it assu m es the flesh o f the world (m atter, the scientific know ledge o f matter, the sen se o f the beauty o f matter, an d h u ­ m an culture in its chan gin g current form s and with its historical products: language, art, and technology). For the ecclesial event to assu m e the flesh o f the world m ean s th at it detach es it from the autonom y o f individual use and transform s it into a shared reality o f loving/euch aristic relation. If th is takes place with the “catholic” flesh o f the created world th at is su bject to decay and death, if m ortal flesh can be tra n s­ form ed into a mode o f the realization o f a free an d uncircum scribed life, why sh ould we not infer that this assu m in g can also include natural religion? If the ecclesial transform ation o f death into life is not sim ply an intellectual construction, a convenient occasion for individualistic psychological certainties; if it is the hope that as shared tru st con stitutes the hypostasis o f w hat is hoped for, an experiential ratification (“control”) o f “th in gs not seen,” then why sh ould we exclude hum anity’s instinctive religiosity from th is a s ­ su m ption an d transform ation ? Religiosity is a natural urge, an instinctive need o f hum an nature, that is often not subjected to rational control an d judgm ent. It may

200

20 1

be com pared to hunger, the need for self-preservation (the central pivot o f biological existence) through the taking o f food, or to the sex drive, the instinctive operation o f self-perpetuation. Participation in the ecclesial event do es not m ake the taking o f food redundant; it d o es not ab olish hunger or the pleasure o f taste—ju st as it d o es not m ake the pleasu rable coupling o f a m an an d a w om an redundant, the joy o f sexual love and the begetting o f children. It is participation in a com m on struggle th at asp ires to changing the atom ic event into a sh ared event: the taking o f food in the context o f sh aring food, a procreative m ingling in the repre­ sen tation o f C hrist’s relation to the Church— a participation that asp ires to chan gin g atom ic survival into a m utual indw elling o f life, the individual’s need o f self-preservation an d self-perpetuation into self-transcendence and loving self-offering. This is the sacram en t o f the Eucharist; this is also the sacram ent o f m arriage. W ithin the Church the word sacram en t, or mystery as it is called in Greek, signifies every event that (in the language not o f concepts but o f ritual, o f participatory dram a) m an ifests the ecclesial mode o f existence, any event that m an ifests (as the hypos­ tasis o f w hat is hoped for) that “the term s o f nature are overcom e”: the term s/n ecessities o f nature are changed into the freedom o f the loving sh arin g/com m un ion o f life. If, then, the Eucharist is the m ystery th at grafts the natural n eed o f self-preservation onto the ecclesial mode an d m arriage, and the m ystery th at grafts the sexual need onto the sam e mode, then which is the m ystery th at would be able to graft hum an ity’s natural need for religion onto the Church? In the language o f C hristian literature an d worship, the w hole ec­ clesial event—the Church in all its m an ifestatio n s— is also called a mystery: it is a realization an d m an ifestation o f the Triadic m ode o f existence. T his m ode is realized and m anifested by the synaxis o f the “body” o f the C hurch in every particular sacram en tal prac­ tice, above all, however, in the su pper o f the Eucharist, where the realization an d m an ifestation o f the body is accom plished by active participation in eatin g and drinking o f the one bread an d the one cup. The eucharistic reception o f hum an ity’s food/life sum m arizes

202

A

g a in s t

R e l ig io n

the mode o f referring to the Father every asp ect o f life an d is every asp ect that is grafted, as a loving reference, onto the ecclesial event. C onsequently (taking as given the in adequacy o f language to signify the existential experience with any fullness), we may be so bold as to say that the Church is a mystery in the m easure in which it extends the mode o f the Eucharist into every partial asp ect o f its life. A gath ering o f b ish op s b ecom es (is not by definition) an ecclesial council when it functions as em bodying the mode o f the Eucharist. A painting b ecom es an ecclesial icon when its style and su bject m atter allow it to facilitate the “p assin g over” o f the b e ­ holder “to the prototype,” that is, to a personal relationship. The adm inistrative organization o f the activities an d n eeds o f a diocese becom es ecclesial when it serves a loving self-offering (not w hen its priorities are sim ply th o se o f practical effectiveness). From the above, one sh ould be able to conclude that the “m ystery” that grafts hum an ity’s natural need for religion onto the Church is the Eucharist: the mode con stitutin g the w hole o f ecclesial life. T hat is why in the space in which the Eucharist is celebrated, a s in the celebration o f the rite itself, it becom es im m ediately obvious (before anything else) w hether there h appen s to be any religioniza­ tion o f the ecclesial event. It is very evident w hether the icons, the ritual, the singing, the poetry o f the hymns, and the illum ination o f the space are “referential,” as the bread and the w ine are, or w hether they becom e au ton om ous so a s to im press the individual, arou se an em otional response in the individual, and facilitate the individual’s search for “salvation.” The Church (the lay body that con stitutes it) has not h esitated to appropriate elem ents o f religion and graft them onto its own mode o f existence and life. It h as appropriated a certain religious vocabulary, term s such as “revelation,” “worship,” “law,” “com m an d­ m ents,” and “sacrifice”; practices such as fasting, prayer, continence, genuflexion, sym bolic types such as b ap tism in water, an oin ting with oil, incense, liturgical dress and vessels; and a h ost o f other things. It h as assu m ed them by reversing the m ean in g and function o f w hat it h as borrowed, transform in g term s o f use into term s o f relation, an individualistic intentionality into the priority o f loving

Can the Ecclesial Event A c co m m od ate Natural Religiosity?

203

com m union, a legal character into a call to self-transcendence and self-offering. Scattered in the earlier pages o f th is book are various attem p ts to identify and d iscu ss the new content that m any o f the above w ords and practices have acquired w ithin the Church. Church and religion are two realities that are incom patible and irreconcilable, like life and death, freedom and necessity, love and self-interest. There is no room for com patibility; the one reality a b ­ rogates the other. The Church, however, proclaim s the abolition o f the in superable antith eses. It affirm s experientially that “the divid­ ing w all” has been dem olished. For death to be transform ed into life, for necessity to bear the fruit o f freedom , it is sufficient to struggle to w ithdraw from self-interest. The catalyst for the transcending o f every an tith esis is ek-static love, the real eros that is also the m ode o f real (Triadic) existence—the C ausal Principle o f everything that exists. If hum an bein gs w ithdraw even from claim ing existence and life for their atom ic selves an d ab an don them selves to the love o f the Father, then the an tith esis betw een life an d death, necessity and freedom , is also abolished. Religion is an instinctive self-interest an d the Church a struggle to attain freedom from self-interest. W ithout the self-interest that is an instinctive drive in nature, there would be no aw areness o f the struggle to attain freedom from nature, no aw areness o f the person as the hy postasis o f freedom . A nd this m ean s that w ithout the instinctual need for religion, the ecclesial struggle to withdraw from religion would rem ain w ithout any hypostasis. We are speak­ ing here o f a struggle, and consequently o f the inevitability o f fail­ ure, o f m issing the target o f the struggle. It is rather for this reason that not only the possibility but also the dynam ic o f religionization follow s the ecclesial event in its historical journey—a perm anent tem ptation and scandal, but also a testin g ground o f freedom . T he w eeds grow togeth er with the w h eat until the harvest. Every attem p t at “cle an sin g ” c o n tain s the d an ger o f p u llin g up the w h eat a s well a s th e w eeds. O nly at the harvest will self-in ­ terest be sep arate d defin itively from eros, th at freedom m ight be in alienable.

Bibliography

“Akolouthia tes Theias Metalepseos.” In Hiera Synopsis, 279-300. Athens: Kampana, n.d. Translated by Holy Transfiguration M onastery as “The Service o f Preparation for Holy Commu­ nion” and “Thanksgiving after Holy Communion,” in A Prayer Book fo r Orthodox Christians (Brookline, MA: Holy Trans­ figuration Monastery, 1987), 321-63. Alivizatos, Hamilcar. Hoi Hieroi Kanones. Athens, 1949. Babiniotis, Georgios D. Lexiko tes neas Ellenikes glossas. 3rd ed. Ath­ ens: Kentro Lexikologias, 2008. Bashevis Singer, Isaac. The Slave. London: Seeker and Warburg, 1963. Birt, Theodor. D as Romische Weltreich. Berlin, 1941. Caruso, Igor. Psychoanalyse und Synthese der Existenz. Freiburg: Herder-Verlag, 1952. Chadwick, Henry, trans. Saint Augustine: Confessions. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press, 1991. Clement, Olivier. He theologia meta ton “thanato tou Theou." Vol. 7 of the Synoro series. Athens: Dodone, 1973. Concise Encyclopedic Dictionary [in Greek], Athens, 1935. Deseille, Placide. La spiritualite orthodoxe et la Philocalie. Paris: Albin Michel, 2003. Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. Translated by David McDuff. London: Penguin Books, 2003. Dyovouniotis, K. Ta mysteria tes Anatolikes Orthodoxou Ekklesias. Athens, 1912.

205

206

Bibliography

Florovsky, Georges. Creation and Redemption. Vol. 3 o f The Collected Works o f Georges Florovsky. Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1976. . Ways o f Russian Theology. Vol. 5 o f The Collected Works o f Georges Florovsky. Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1979.

B ibliography

207

edited by William R. Miller and Harold D. Delaney, 115-32. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2005. Kadloubovsky, E., and G. E. H. Palmer, trans. Writings from the Philo­ kalia on Prayer o f the Heart. London: Faber and Faber, 1951.

Freud, Sigmund. Mourning and Melancholia. In vol. 14 o f Strachey, ed., Standard Edition o f the Complete Psychological Works o f Sigmund Freud.

Kittel, Gerhard, ed. Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1966-76.

. The Ego and the Id. In vol. 20 o f Strachey, ed., Standard Edition o f the Complete Psychological Works o f Sigmund Freud. Geiselmann, J. R. “Dogma.” In Handbuch theologischer Grundbegrijfe, edited by H. Fries. Munich: Kosel-Verlag, 1962.

Laarmann, Matthias. “Transubstantiation.” In Ritter, Griinder, and Gabriel, eds., Historisches Worterbuch der Philosophie, 10:1349-58.

Goldberg, B. Z. The Sacred Fire: The Story o f Sex in Religion. New York: Grove Press, 1962. Gregory o f Nyssa. On the Life o f Moses. Edited by H. Musurillo. In vol. 7 o f Gregorii Nysseni Opera, edited by W. Jaeger and H. Langerbeck. Leiden: Brill, 1964. . On Ecclesiastes, Homily 7. Edited by J. McDonough and P. Alexander. In vol. 5 o f Gregorii Nysseni Opera, edited by W. Jaeger and H. Langerbeck. Leiden: Brill, 1962. Grupp, G. Kulturgeschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit. Regensburg, 1921. Harding, Celia. “Introduction: Making sense o f sexuality.” In Sexuali­ ty: Psychoanalytic Perspectives, edited by Celia Harding, 1-17. New York: Brunner-Routledge, 2001. Hauck, Friedrich. “Akathartos, akatharsia.” In Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament, 3:427-31. Hauck, Friedrich, and Siegfried Schulz. “Pome, pornos, porneia, porneuo, ekporneuo.” In Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament, 6:579-95. Hering, Gunnar. Oikoumeniko Patriarcheio kai Eurbpaike politike, 1620-1638. Athens: MIET, 1992. Isaac the Syrian. The Ascetic Writings o f Our Holy Father Isaac the Syrian. Edited by Nikephoros Theotokis. Leipzig, 1770. Reedited by Joachim Spetieris (Athens, 1895). John o f Sinai. The Ladder. Edited by the hermit Sophronius. Constan­ tinople, 1883. Jones, Stanton L., and Heather R. Hostler. “The Role o f Sexuality in Personhood.” In Judeo-Christian Perspectives on Psychology,

Leon-Dufour, Xavier, ed. Dictionary o f Biblical Theology. 2nd ed. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1995. Lorenz, S., and W. Schroder. “M anichaism us II.” In Ritter, Griinder, and Gabriel, eds., Historisches Worterbuch der Philosophie, 5:715-16. Migne, Jacques-Paul. Patrologia graeca. 161 vols. Paris, 1857-86. Miklosich, F., and J. Muller. Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani. Vienna, 1860. Moltmann, Jurgen. Praedestination und Perseveranz. Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1961. Motchoulsky, C. Dostoievsky. Paris: Payot, 1963. Nygren, Gotthard. D as Pradestinationsproblem in der Theologie Au­ gustins. Lund: printed dissertation, 1956. Papagiannopoulos, Ilias. “The correlation between God and interior­ ity.” In Exodos theatrou: Dokimio ontologias m eploego ton “Moby D ick” tou H. Melville. Athens: Indiktos, 2 0 0 0 . • “From Augustine to Kant: The Oedipus-like program o f West­ ern metaphysics.” In Epekeina tes apousias. Athens: Indiktos, 2005. Pascal, Blaise. Ecrits sur la Grace. In vol. 11 o f Oeuvres completes de Blaise Pascal, edited by L. Brunschvicg. Paris: Hachette, 1914. Pheidas, Vlasios. Ekklesiastike Historia. Vol. 2. Athens, 1994. Pfister, Kurt. Der Untergang der antiken Welt. Leipzig, 1941. Philippidis, Leonidas. Historia tes epoches tes Kaines Diathekes. Athens, 1958. Reckermann, A. “Idol, Ido(lo)latrie.” In Ritter, Griinder, and Gabriel, eds., Historisches Worterbuch der Philosophie, 4:188-92. Ritter, J., K. Griinder, and G. Gabriel, eds. Historisches Worterbuch der Philosophie. 13 vols. Basel: Schwabe-Verlag, 1971-2007.

208

B ibliography

Runciman, Steven. The Medieval Manichee: A Study o f the Christian Dualist Heresy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947. Russell, Norman, trans. The Lives o f the Desert Fathers. Cistercian Studies 34. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1980. Sacred Community o f the Holy Mountain. “Anairesis ton peplanemenon theseon tou k. Chrestou Giannara peri tou en hagiois patros hemon Nikodemou tou Hagioreitou.” Orthodoxe Martyria 4 0 (1993): 1-10.

B ibliography

2 09

Orthodoxy and the West: Hellenic Self-Identity in the Mod­ ern Age. Translated by Peter Chamberas and Norman Russell. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 20 0 6 . Originally published as Orthodoxia kai Dyse ste neotere Ellada (Athens: Domos, 1992). Person and Eros. Translated by Norman Russell. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2007. Originally published as To prosopo kai o eros, 4th ed. (Athens: Domos, 1987).

Sathas, Konstantinos. Biographikon schediasma peri tou Patriarchou Ieremiou B ’ (1572-1594). Thessalonica: Pournaras, 1979.

Philosophic san s rupture. Translated by Andre Borr&y. Gene­ va: Labor et Fides, 1986. Originally published as Schediasma eisagoges stephilosophia, 4th ed. (Athens: Domos, 1994).

Shafranske, Edward P., ed. Religion and the Clinical Practice o f Psy­ chology. Washington, DC: American Psychological A ssocia­ tion, 1996.

Relational Ontology. Translated by Norman Russell. Brook­ line, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2011. Originally pub­ lished as Ontologia tes scheses (Athens: Ikaros, 2004).

Sherrard, Philip. Christianity and Eros. London: SPCK, 1976.

“Vatikano kai Diamartyrese ston Marxismo.” In He neoellenike tautoteta, 23-31. Athens: Grigori, 1978.

Soderlund, Rune. Ex praevisa fidei: Zum Versfdndnis der Pradestinationslehre in der lutheranischen Orthodoxie. Hanover: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1983. Stephanidis, Vasileios. Ekklesiastike Historia. 3rd ed. Athens: Astir, 1970. Strachey, Jam es, ed. Standard Edition o f the Complete Psychological Works o f Sigmund Freud. 24 vols. London: Hogarth Press and the Institute o f Psycho-Analysis, 1953-74. Taft, Robert. “The Pontifical Liturgy o f the Great Church accord­ ing to a Twelfth-Century Diataxis in Codex British Museum Add. 34060.” Pt. 1, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 45 (1979): 279-397; pt. 2, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 46 (1980): 82-124. Vasse, Denis. Le temps du desir. Paris: Seuil, 1969. Vergote, Antoine. Guilt and Desire. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988. Voegelin, E. “Religionsersatz. Die gnostischen Massenbewegungen unserer Zeit.” Wort und Wahrheit 15 (1960): 5-18. Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit o f Capitalism. Lon­ don and New York: Routledge, 2001. Yannaras, Christos. He eleutheria tou ethous. 3rd rev. ed. Athens: Ikaros, 2002. Translated by Elizabeth Briere as The Freedom o f Morality (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984).

Index

129, 156-157, 183; titular, 157, 198 Bobrinskoy, Boris, 190 Bogomils, 165-166 Bulgaria, Church of, 162 Burgundians, 89, 143 Byzantium, 86, 91, 114

Index

Abraham, 132 Adam, 174 address, form of, 115 aer, 117 Albania, Church of, 162 Albert the Great, 76, 147 Alexandria, patriarchate of, 155, 158 Alivizatos, Hamilcar, 80n allegory, 85 Ambrose o f Milan, 146n Anabaptists, 7 6 ,1 6 7 anamnesis, 23, 79 Androutsos, Christos, 76 Angelopoulos, Lycurgos, 97 Angles, 89 Anselm o f Canterbury, 147, 198 Antioch, patriarchate of, 155, 158 Aphrodite, 86 apodictic method, 10, 11, 109 Apollonius, monk, 176n apologetics, 9 apophaticism, 38 Apostolic Council. See Council: Apostolic Aquinas, Thomas, 76, 147

210

architecture, ecclesiastical, 95-96, 161 art, ecclesiastical, 84-98, 161, 172n, 200 asceticism, 34, 99, 193 Athos, Mount, 94, 198, 199n Augustine o f Hippo, 8, 143-151, 196 autarky, 196 authority, 11, 12, 14, 15-20, 41-48 Babiniotis, Georgios D., 177n baptism, 99. See also mystery (sacrament) Baptists, 71, 167 baroque style, 95 Basil the Great o f Caesarea, 55n, 80n, 81 Basilides, 163 beards, 114, 160 beauty, 86, 187 Bellefontaine, Abbaye de, 190 Berengar o f Tours, 76 Birt, Theodor, 137n bishop, 39-40, 45, 48, 54, 102-105, 115, 116-117,

calendar. See Old Calendarists Calvin, John, 76, 141 Calvinists, 71 canon law, 113-114, 134-135, 140 canonization, 199 canons, ecclesiastical, 68-71 capitalism, 149n Caruso, Igor, 112n Cathars, 166 catholicity, 142, 151-163 celibacy, clerical, 104, 129, 154 Chadwick, Henry, 145n Charles the Great (Charlemagne), 143, 144 chasuble (phelonion), 103 childbirth, 70, 120, 127-128 Church: as ecclesial event, 21-23, 44, 84, 100-105, 192, 202-203; as institution, 140-142. See also Orthodoxy; Orthodoxism Cimabue, 92 circumcision, 66, 130-132, 135 civil religion. See religion: civil Civitas Vaticana, 141 Claret, 190 Clement, Olivier, 149n clerical dress. See dress: clerical Comblin, Jose, 190 communion, 84 Communists, 84 conciliar system, 39-40, 141-142, 151, 155-156. See also Council; councils

21 1

confession: of sins, 99, 127; of faith, 177, 178, 180 confessionalism, 176-182 Confessions, Reformation, 179 Congregatio de Propaganda Fidei, 153 Congregationalists, 71, 167 Constantine the Great, emperor, 137-138 Constantinople, patriarchate of, 158 conversion, 144 Corpus Iuris Canonici, 71, 180n Council: Apostolic, 67, 131-132; First Ecumenical, 177; Fourth Ecumenical, 68, 155; Quinisext, 68, 69; Lateran IV, 76; FerraraFlorence, 159; Trent, 177, 198; Vatican I, 179; Vatican II, 189 councils: Constantinopolitan, 156n; ecumenical, 4 0 ,4 1 , 68 crown (mitra), 103 Cyril Loukaris, patriarch of Constantinople, 181 Czech Republic, Orthodox Church of, 162 deacon, 45 death, 32-33, 34, 200 Descartes, Ren£, 76, 150 Desclee de Brouwer, 190 Deseille, Placide, 191n diakonia, 155, 156 diaspora, Orthodox, 142, 189 Dionysius, archbishop of Alexandria, 70n docetism, 164 dogma, 4, 88, 163, 195-196 Dositheos, patriarch o f Jerusalem, 7 6 ,181 Dostoevsky, Fyodor, 14, 189

212

dress: clerical, 19, 114-115; liturgical, 103, 116-117 dualism, ontological, 164 Duns Scotus, John, 147 DuSan, Stephen, 159 Dyovouniotis, K., 77n ecclesia. See Church ecclesial community, 22, 151. See also parish ecumenicity, 53 Edi^oes Paulinas, 190 Eleusinian mysteries, 139 Eliot, T. S., 190 emissions, involuntary, 120n eschatology, 133-134 esotericism, 191 essence and energies, 149 essentialism, 146 ethics, 152 Eucharist, 23-24, 40, 41, 44, 59, 71-84, 104-105, 140, 183, 193-194, 201-202 evil, 3, 111 excommunication, 68, 69 Faber and Faber, 189-190 faith, 9, 11-12, 15,35, 36-37, 49-51, 55-56, 107, 133, 152-153, 178 fall, 125, 173-174 fanaticism, 18 fasting, 4 Father, 25-27 Fathers o f the Church, 53-54,109, 1 7 0 ,1 7 1 ,1 7 2 ,1 9 1 , 192 Ferreira, Maria Emilia, 190 fetish, 4 Filioque, 198 Florovsky, Georges, 128n, 160n, 197 Franks, 76, 8 9 ,1 4 3 , 144, 160-161

Index

freedom, 7, 8, 28, 31, 37, 45, 79 Freud, Sigmund, 6n Freudian theory, 110 fundamentalism, 110-113. See also “Genuine Orthodox” Geiselmann, J. R., 179n Gennadios Scholarios, patriarch o f Constantinople, 76 “Genuine Orthodox,” 71, 109, 126, 171, 185 Georgia, Church of, 162 Giotto, 92 gnosticism, 163-166 God, 31-32, 107, 148, 187. See also Trinity, Holy Goldberg, B. Z., 118n good works, 8-9 gospel, 31 Gothic style, 91-92, 95 Goths, 143 Gouillard, Jean, 190 grace, 12-13, 15, 41 Greece, Church of, 161-162 Gregory X, pope, 76 Gregory o f Nyssa, 186 Grupp, G., 137n guilt, 6, 150, 176 Harding, Celia, 118n Hauck, Friedrich, 120n Hegel, G. W. F., 76 hell, 8, 149 heresy, 4, 47-48, 49, 137-138, 151, 169 Hering, Gunnar, 181n Hildebert, archbishop o f Tours, 76 holiness, 54 Holy Communion, Office of (Service o f Preparation for), 79-82 Holy Mountain. See Athos, Mount

Index

Homo sapiens sapiens, 174 host, unleavened, 161 Hostler, Heather R., 118n Hume, David, 76, 113n Huns, 89, 143 icon, 87, 95 iconoclasts, 95 Idea, Platonic, 86, 87, 150 ideology, 49-50, 54-55, 57, 178 idol, 4, 10, 55 idolization: o f the Bible, 51; o f the intellect, 10; o f Tradition, 51, 54, 105-118, 185 image, 72, 146 immortality, 195 incarnation, 32, 33, 72, 74, 106, 128, 132 -1 3 3 ,2 0 0 Index of Prohibited Books, 10, 153 individual, 37, 50, 77 individualism, 145-147, 150, 192-193, 198 indulgences, 198 infallibility, 10, 40, 51, 53, 54 Innocent IV, pope, 153 Inquisition, Holy, 153, 166 intellectualism, 151 Isaac the Syrian, 36n, 184n, 186 Jeremias II, patriarch o f Constantinople, 160 Jerusalem, patriarchate of, 155, 158 Jesus Christ, 24-25, 29-33, 106, 174 Jews. See Judaism John Chrysostom, 81 John Damascene, 81 John the Faster, 70n John o f Sinai, 64n Jones, Stanton L., 118n Judaism, 23, 119-120, 130, 163

213

Judaizers, 66-67, 130-131, 133, 134, 135 Julian, emperor, 138 Julian Calendar. See Old Calendarists Justin Martyr, 176n Kadloubovsky, E., 189 Kallistos, patriarch o f Constantinople, 158 kalymmafchi, 115 Kant, Immanuel, 113n, 150 Karras, Simon, 97 kenosis (self-emptying), 45, 78 kingdom o f heaven, 24 knowledge, 51, 55 Kontoglou, Photis, 97 Kritopoulos, Mitrophanes, 181 Laarmann, Matthias, 76n law, 5-6, 7, 65, 66, 69, 132, 135, 136, 140; Mosaic, 66. See also canons, canon law Libreria Editrice Fiorentina, 190 Leon-Dufour, Xavier, 120n Lombards, 89, 143 Lorenz, S., 167n Lorenzetti, Ambrogio, 92 Loukaris, Cyril. See Cyril Loukaris, patriarch o f Constantinople love, 25, 28, 31, 108, 203 Loyola, Ignatius, 198 Luther, Martin, 76 Lutherans, 71, 141, 179 Makarios Notaras, metropolitan o f Corinth, 188 mandyas (mantle), 117 Mani, 163-164 Manichaeism, 71, 150, 166, 167-168

214

maniera bizantina, 90, 92 Marcion, 163 Marcionites, 163, 164-165 marriage, sacrament of, 127 Martini, Simone, 92 martyrdom, 67, 176-177 Maxentius, emperor, 137 menstruation, 120n merit, 65 Messalians, 165 Mesters, Carlos, 190 metaphysics, 87, 88, 151 Methodists, 71 metropolitan system, 45 Michael VIII Palaiologos, emperor, 76 migration o f peoples, the great, 143 Milan, Edict of, 137 miracle, 14-15, 17. See also sign: as wonder miter, 84 Mithraism, 138 mode o f existence, ecclesial, 23-25, 30, 42, 44, 58, 59, 67, 75, 79, 84, 85, 86, 121, 133, 139, 152, 170, 172 Moghila. See Peter Moghila, metropolitan o f Kiev Moltmann, Jurgen, 149n monasticism, 184 moralism, 70, 134, 153, 196 morality, 5, 11 Moscow, patriarchate of, 159-161 Moses, 66n, 132 Motchoulsky, C., 189 Mother o f God, 128-129 music, ecclesiastical, 96-97 Musurillo, H., 186n mystery (sacrament), 14, 15, 17, 99-100, 122, 201-202 mysticism, 12, 151, 190

Index

narcissism, 7 nationalism, 155, 161-162 naturalism, 88, 92 New Rome. See Constantinople, patriarchate of Nicephoros, patriarch of Constantinople, 69, 70n Nicephoros the Confessor, 120n Nikodemos o f the Holy Mountain, 188, 197 Normans, 89 Notaras, Makarios. See Makarios Notaras, metropolitan of Corinth Nygren, Gotthard, 149n obedience, 73 Ochrid, archbishopric of, 158 Old Apostolics, 71 Old Calendarists, 112, 171 Old Testament, 119-121 Olympic Games, 139 ontology, 58 Optina monastery, 188-189 ordination, 99, 129 ordo rerum, 136, 137, 144 Orthodoxism, 142, 155-157, 16 9 -1 7 6 ,1 8 1 ,1 8 2 -1 8 6 , 188, 192 Orthodoxy, ecclesial, 151, 162-163, 169-170, 175-176, 191-192; Latin, 158 pallium (omophorion), 103 Palmer, G. E. H., 189, 190 pantheism, 150 Papagiannopoulos, Ilias, 147n, 196n papal primacy. See pope parish, 98-105, 140, 182 participation, 51, 58, 62, 77. See also relation

Index

Pascal, Blaise, 107n, 167n pateritsa. See scepter (pateritsa) patriarch, 115, 157 Paul, apostle, 121-125, 132, 148 Paulicians, 165 Pax: Christiana, 137; Romana, 136, 137 Ped, archbishopric of, 159 pentarchy o f patriarchates, 45, 114, 158 Pepin the Short, 152 person, 37 Peter, apostle, 130, 176n Peter the Great, 94 Peter Moghila, metropolitan of Kiev, 76, 181 Pfister, Kurt, 137n Pheidas, Vlasios, 166n phelonion. See chasuble (phelonion) philautia (love o f self), 193 Philippidis, Leonidas, 70n Philokalia, 188-199 pietism, 71, 151, 163, 166, 167-168, 191 Pisanello, 93 Plato, 150 plenitudo potestatis, 154 poetry, 188 Poland, Orthodox Church of, 162 polis, 21-22, 82 pontifex maximus, 141. See also pope pope, 103, 141, 142, 154, 156, 180 prayer, 188, 191 predestination, 149 presbyter, 45, 102, 115, 129 Presbyterians, 167 priest, 102, 114 primacy, papal. See pope proofs for the existence of God, 9

215

Protestantism, 84, 109, 141, 178-179 psychology, 43-44, 57, 58, 63 Puritanism, 71, 166-167 Quakers, 71, 167 quietism, 191 Raphael, 9 In Reckermann, A., 113n Reformation, 178 relation, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, 42, 46, 58, 59, 63, 66, 106-107, 123, 124, 176, 187, 195, 197, 202-203 religion: definition of, 3, 203; civil, 141; imperial, 67, 135-142; instinctive, 2-6, 8 -9 religionization o f the ecclesial event, 49-50, 67, 77, 88-89, 99-105, 108, 113, 133-134, 139-140, 143, 196, 197, 198 religiosity, 1-3, 6-7, 60-62, 78-79, 200-201 Renaissance, 86 repentance, 46-47 resurrection, 32, 106 revelation, 25-26 rococo style, 95 Roman Catholic Church, 109, 125,142, 151, 152, 154, 156, 166, 172, 180 Roman Empire, 135-142 Romanesque style, 90 Romania, Church of, 161 Rome, patriarchate of, 158. See also pope Russia, 94, 159-161, 189 Sabbath journey, 69 sacra scientia, 9

Index

2 16

sacrament. See mystery (sacrament) sacrifice, 4, 5 sadism, 6, 8, 148 sakkos (tunic), 103, 117 salvation: ecclesial, 33, 63-65, 124, 182, 186, 194-195; individual, 7, 146, 186, 193 Salvation Army, 71 Sathas, Konstantinos, 160n Saturnilus, 163 scepter (pateritsa), 103 Schism: First (867), 90, 143; Great (1054), 90, 143, 151, 158 Scholarios, Gennadios. See Gennadios Scholarios, patriarch o f Constantinople scholasticism, 88, 150 Schulz, Siegfried, 120n sculpture, 86 Scupoli, Lorenzo, 198 self-preservation, 1, 7, 9 Serbia, Church of, 162 sexuality, 4, 118-129, 200, 201 Shafranske, Edward P., 118n Sherrard, Philip, 118n, 190 sign: as wonder, 29-30, 34-35, 38, 44, 74; as signifier, 32-33, 45, 77, 99, 117 Sigueme, 190 sin, 34, 46-47, 65, 134 Sinai, Mount, 132 Singer, Isaac Bashevis, 70n, 120n Slovakia, 162 Soderlund, Rune, 149n Solovyov, Vladimir, 189 Son, 25-27 soul, 146, 171 Spetieris, Joachim, 36n Spirit, Holy, 25-28, 131-132 Spyridon o f Trimithous, 54 Staniloae, Dumitru, 189

Stephanidis, Vasileios, 166n Stephen II, pope, 141n Sunday of Orthodoxy, 95 symbol, 76-77, 82 Symeon, tsar o f Bulgaria, 158 Symeon Metaphrastes, 81 Symeon the New Theologian, 81 syntax, 85, 87 Taft, Robert, 103n thanksgiving, 96 Theodoropoulos, Epiphanios, 189n Theodosius the Great, emperor, 138, 139 theosis (deification), 193, 195 Theotokis, Nikephoros, 36 Theotokos. See Mother o f God Timothy o f Alexandria, 70n, 120n titular bishops. See bishop, titular Tolstoy, Leo, 189 Torah, 66n, 120n. See also law torture, juridical use of, 10 totalitarianism, 9-10, 18, 153 tradition, 51-53, 105-118, 171-172 transubstantiation, 75-78, 194 Trembelas, Panayiotis, 76 Trinity, Holy, 25-28, 34, 72-73, 93 Trnovo, archbishopric of, 158 unanimity o f the Fathers, 53 unconscious, 8 unction, 99 Uspensky, Leonid, 97 Valentinus, 163 Van der Weyden, Rogier, 93 Van Eyck, Jan, 93 Vandals, 89, 143 Vannucci, Giovanni, 190 Vasse, Denis, 118n

Index

Vatican. See Roman Catholic Church Velichkovskii, Paisii, 188 Vergote, Antoine, 118n virginity, 128-129 virtue, 5, 60, 197 Voegelin, E., 166n Ware, Kallistos, 190 wars of religion, 4, 180 Weber, Max, 149n Westernization, 156-157, 180-181, 196

217

wisdom books, 120 women, denigration of, 127-128 worship, 5 zealotism. See fundamentalism; “Genuine Orthodox”; Old Calendarists Zoroastrianism, 136 Zwingli, Huldreich, 76 Zwinglians, 71, 179