Laity and Church rather than laity and emperor: a new symphonia?

[Matthew Namee]

The role of the laity in the Orthodox Church today seems to be ambiguous. It is my opinion that this question is among the most pressing, if not the most pressing, facing the Church today (whether it's acknowledged or not). I have recently heard a theory regarding the role of the laity which I find to be compelling, and I'd like to hear what others have to say and open a discussion.

In many places and for many centuries, the Orthodox Church existed in a state/empire which had at its head an Orthodox monarch. Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, etc. notwithstanding, the classic example of this is the Byzantine Empire. I am not especially well-versed in church-state relations in Byzantium, but I know that according to the principle of "symphonia," at least in theory, the Church and the emperor were supposed to work in harmony and cooperation. The Church did not control the state, and the emperor did not control the Church. Yet, the Church prayed for and supported the emperor, and the emperor did a number of things for the Church -- he called councils, he paid the salaries of bishops and priests (at least some), he enforced the decisions of councils, and so forth. With the fall of Constantinople in 1453, a vacuum was created. The Ottoman state made the Ecumenical Patriarch the secular head of the empire's Orthodox Christians; he effectively exercised the role in the Church that was once held by the emperor.

The theory goes like this: We no longer have an emperor, and the Church no longer has a monarch with whom to engage in the practice of symphonia. Thus, the role once assigned to the emperor (who was, after all, only the richest and most powerful layman) passes to the laity as a whole. As a practical example of this, take the famous Ligonier council in 1994: it was organized and financed by an affluent Antiochian layman. He and others like him filled the role (organizing and financing) which was once held by the emperor. The power and so forth are no longer in the hands of one man, but they should rightfully be diffused among the laity. This is not a proposal of congregationalism, just as Byzantine symphonia was not (contrary to popular belief) caesaropapism. Rather, there should be a harmonious cooperation between the hierarchy and the laity, as opposed to a passive laity which merely tithes and takes communion.

I'm sure I have done a poor job of articulating this theory, but I hope you get the sense of what I'm trying to suggest. (It isn't actually my idea originally, but I don't know if the person who initially suggested it would like me to mention his name. Not that he's on Monachos, but still...)

What do the rest of you think of this? Is it reasonable to suggest that, roughly, the role of the emperor passes to the laity as a whole? How could this practically work itself out in the Church today?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I hope to hear from others also, but my feeling about this is that there is some confusion in this idea.

The Emperor after all was part of the realm of government, a realm that could be affected by the Church but never fully be part of it.

The laity however are called to be fully members of the Church; they are not to stand aside in another realm. In doing so it could very well admit a kind of secularism especially if the way to fulfill their role is through the rich & powerful. The end result of this would be to fall into the very same dichotomy that Church & state intrinsically are (keep in mind that the roots of hierarchical government stem from the falleness of man: both the OT & I believe Fathers such as St John Chrysostom refer to this). But such a dichotomy would not be the Church.

Keep in mind here that the word or concept of laity is problematic if carried too far. It's original use in Patristic thought was to convey the distinction between laity & clergy. But meanwhile the more profound context of being members of the Church remains.

The laity then I believe are called to be true to their calling: ie the people of God as members of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Namee]

The Emperor after all was part of the realm of government, a realm that could be affected by the Church but never fully be part of it.
Yes, I agree, the laity cannot (and should not) be approximating the governmental functions of the emperor. However, the emperor was not only a governmental official outside of the Church -- he was also a member of the Church, a very rich and very influential layman. Emperors built churches and monasteries, they organized and financed councils, they paid the salaries of priests and bishops. In short, they (the good ones, at least) used their wealth and position to facilitate the work of the Church.

It is this that I think could be replicated among the laity. I probably made a poor choice by titling this thread "A new symphonia?" since symphonia refers to church-state relations, which isn't really what I meant to suggest. But it's a fact that today the laity, particularly the pious affluent laity, are those who finance the building of churches and monasteries, pay the clergy, and even (in the case of Ligonier, at least) organize councils. Without this participation, with an exclusively hierarchy-run church, there would be no money for anything and probably not very much business, legal, and financial acumen to keep the house in order. So it seems to me that at least some of the emperor's role can be approximated by the laity.

[Andreas Moran]

I don't know much about these things, but wasn't there a mystical relationship between the Byzantine emperor, the Church and the people? We've discussed elsewhere the matter of anointed monarchs as divinely given rulers. The mystical dimension is apparent when one thinks of the Derzhavnaya (Reigning) icon of the Mother of God which signifies the Mother of God assuming a spiritual rule over Russia in place of the Tsar. (This icon toured England and America last year: for England, see at www.sourozh.org/web/Reigning_Icon_2007)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I don't know much about these things, but wasn't there a mystical relationship between the Byzantine emperor, the Church and the people? We've discussed elsewhere the matter of anointed monarchs as divinely given rulers. The mystical dimension is apparent when one thinks of the Derzhavnaya (Reigning) icon of the Mother of God which signifies the Mother of God assuming a spiritual rule over Russia in place of the Tsar. (This icon toured England and America last year: for England, see at www.sourozh.org/web/Reiging_Icon_2007

This link shows a page with no text - I don't know why. The article can be found if you do a Google search, 'Derzhavnaya icon London.)

There is no doubt that this relationship between the Church and governing authority was mystical in one sense. Many Church Fathers speak of this from the time of St Constantine to that of the Holy Tsar Martyr Nikolai & his family.

However the word 'mystical' has many different meanings within the Church. The mystical relationship between Church & governing authority is one thing and that between the members of the Church another.

I strongly suggest not using the model of the former for the latter (except maybe in some general, homiletic way) since between the members of the Church there should already be that ideal & way of life which speaks of a Christ centered unity.

Trying to place this latter into the Church-governing authority model I think risks secularizing us as the Church.

What I am trying to say is that beneath the Church-governing authority relationship is something quite different from that found within the Church.

The Fathers refer to the order of governing authority as a reflection of the Divine order. However they always balance this by making it clear (esp see St John Chrysostom) that intrinsic to governing authority as we know this is something fundamentally inequitable in a way, a kind of rule which is different in nature from that found within the Church.

In order to temper this the Fathers will always explain that the governing authority must be actively just, merciful, charitable. And of course for them this tempering of the governing authority must occur through the influence of the Church.

The clear implication for us is that the relationship between Church & governing authority cannot be that between Church members. And the reason for this is because these two- Church & state- are actually two different realities.

Once again- to bring the model of Church & governing authority/state into the Church, I think would be secularizing. Whereas the model for unity within the Church is right before us- ie the way of life which the Church sets before us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

What I am trying to say is that beneath the Church-governing authority relationship is something quite different from that found within the Church.

Even where a church and the state are in close co-operation, as in England with its established church and where we still have bishops sitting in parliament as of right (statutes are passed 'by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal'), there is no guarantee that the co-operation will be all it should be. The reason for the emergence of protestant groups such as the Methodists was because both church and state failed to meet their spiritual and governing obligations to the people. Where there is separation of church and state and in fact no clear majority faith, it's hard to see what role the state has save to maintain freedom of worship.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

And just to repeat, because without this understanding we will fall into serious distortions of Church life: the difference between Church and state & between Church members is not merely one of different kinds of external relationship.

The difference is that these are two quite different realities- and it is this which creates the different relationships between those involved in them.

In Christ- Fr Raphael