The Stand of the Orthodox Church on Controversial Issues
The Formulation of the Church's Stand
Throughout
its history, the Orthodox Church has dealt with controversial issues by a
process which addresses the "mind of the Church." When an issue
arises for which there is no clear-cut, widely and readily acknowledged
tradition, and about which there is honest divergence of opinion as to what
view genuinely expresses the teaching of the Church, a process begins which may
eventually lead to the formulation of an official Church teaching. A classical
example from the early period of the Church is the formulation of the Church
doctrines about the Person of Jesus Christ, which began with the First
Ecumenical Council in Nicaea
(325) and concluded with the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787).
Over this four hundred and
sixty-three year period, the Church clarified its understanding and teaching of
the revelation regarding Jesus Christ. At the center of this process stood the
Ecumenical Councils, which constituted the final and most authoritative agent
for the formulation of doctrine, pending the acceptance of their decrees by the
entire Church. For the Orthodox Church, this meant that such issues could not,
and should not, be solved by appeal to a single bishop or leader, no matter how
honored and respected he might be. It meant, rather, that the Church set its
mind to resolving the issue through a corporate approach which drew on the
whole tradition of the records of God's revelation.
In practice this meant
reference to the Bible and to the living Tradition of the Church by persons
seeking to comprehend how the tradition spoke to the new questions being
raised. Questions were never raised just for intellectual curiosity nor for the
sake of systematic organization. They nearly always were raised because in one
way or another their outcome would bear on our salvation and the truths of the
Faith. A response would be made whenever a new teaching seemed to be at
variance with tradition in one way or another, and consequently not in harmony
with the received tradition of revelation, even though the response might have
to deal with yet undefined topics. Thus, the great Fathers of the Church, such
as Athanasios, Basil, the Gregorys and Chrysostom, not only criticized the
false teachings of heresiarchs such as Arius, but proposed formulations of the
truth as well. These became the subject of study, debate, and finally, the
decisions of Councils on every level - local, regional, provincial and
ecumenical, all guided by the Holy Spirit.
The Present Stand of the Church
Many controversial issues
presented to us during these days of rapid change have reached the earliest
stages in the process of dealing with controversial issues. People are
beginning the search for answers - either with respect to attacks on the faith
and practices of the Orthodox Church, or to new and previously unimagined
problems - that can be formulated so as to preserve our salvation in Christ and
to reflect the truths of the Faith. Often, since new issues arising from the
rapid development of technology affect not only individual church members, but
society as a whole, the attempt to answer the question for and within the
Church also provides a basis for addressing these same questions on the public
scene.
In some cases the controversial
issues can be addressed from long-standing doctrinal, ethical and canonical
traditions. Where this is the case, there is little or no debate in the Church.
One example is the Church's position on the legalization of abortion on demand.
Since the Church went through the same debate in the early fourth century, it
is not difficult to determine "the mind of the Church" on this issue,
and to apply it to the current discussion.
Complications from Technology
The process, however, is not so
easy in reference to the many issues which deal with the concerns arising from
the amazing development of medical technology. How, for example, would the
tradition of revelation address the issue of artificial insemination? The first
question it would ask is if there are any implications in it from the
perspective of salvation and the truths of Faith. In this case, since it
clearly impinges on marriage, family, the relation between spouses, and the
lives of human beings, there is an obvious connection. In order to understand
that connection, it is necessary to examine the whole tradition of revelation
in the sources of the Church's teaching in order to clarify the impact of the
new technologies. Then, solutions seeking to embody that tradition are offered
to the "mind of the Church."
If the membership of the Church
finds them in harmony with the tradition, and if they are not widely
challenged, the formulation may remain at that level, and become part of the
teaching ministry of the Church. If it is challenged and debated, it may become
the subject of conciliar decision. Only very few topics would ever reach the
level of consideration by a regional or pan-Orthodox council.
The Content and the
Stand of this Article
What follows in this section
represents this process in dealing with controversial issues. It seeks to
express "the mind of the Church" on these issues, either by defending
against attacks on the Orthodox Church's teachings and practice, or by
providing ethical guidance concerning issues that arise from our highly
technological age. Very few claims to uncontroverted teaching can be made. Most
positions of the discussion should be understood as the current consensus,
sincerely and widely held, and representing the mind of the Orthodox Church on
issues discussed. At this early stage, this is the most that can be presented.
In practice, it serves today as the teaching of the Orthodox Church on these
controversial issues:
Worship
The most characteristic aspect
of Orthodox Christianity is its worship. Though rich in tradition of doctrine,
morality, canon law, social concern, personal faith, and monasticism, to name
only a few of its objects, the core of Orthodox Christian life is to be found
in its worship. Consequently, Orthodox Christianity has been perceived by some
to emphasize worship so much that the other aspects of church life appear to be
submerged and even lost. Orthodox leaders would strongly deny the
characterization that the Orthodox Church is only a Church of worship, while
continuing to accept and justify the centrality of worship in the life of the
Church.
Worship is central to the life
of the Church because it is the place where the most important relationship for
human life occurs: the relationship with God. Worship includes the chief means
by which God has revealed Himself to humanity: Scripture and the living
Tradition of the Faith. No worship service in the Orthodox Church is without
the use of the Bible. Furthermore, worship brings all of life into the life of
the Kingdom of God. The Orthodox Church orders its
worship so that time is sanctified, as are all aspects of human life. For
example, when Orthodox Christians open a new business, it is customary for the
priest to bless it with sanctified water; when a newborn baby reaches its
fortieth day, he or she is brought to the Church by the parents for the
"churching."
Worship also makes alive and
present for the believer all of the mighty acts of salvation history. Most
feasts are presented in worship services as occurring now, "today."
The chief example of this is Holy Week, which serves to help the faithful
relive the events of Christ's Death and Resurrection.
More important, however, is the
sacramental aspect of worship, through which the saving work of Jesus Christ is
mediated by the Church to each person. Baptism introduces the believer into the
life of the Kingdom. Holy anointing or Chrismation grants the gift of the Holy
Spirit for growth in the image and likeness of God. The Eucharist realizes the Kingdom of God everywhere it is celebrated, and
unites the communicant with the very Body and Blood of the Lord. The sacrament
of Penance serves to grant and assure the penitent Christian of God's
forgiveness. Marriage unites a man and a woman, incorporating the natural union
into the life of the Kingdom, "in the Lord." Ordination sets aside a
small number of the believers for special service to the altar. Unction
mediates healing and forgiving grace to believers. It is around these worship
experiences that the Orthodox Christian lives his or her Christian life. Hence
worship cannot be other than central to the life of the Church.
Marriage,
Divorce, and Mixed Marriages
Marriage is one of the
sacraments of the Orthodox Church. Orthodox Christians who marry must marry in
the Church in order to be in sacramental communion with the Church. According
to the Church canons, an Orthodox who marries outside the Church may not
receive Holy Communion and may not serve as a sponsor, i.e. a Godparent at a
Baptism, or as a sponsor at a Wedding. Certain marriages are prohibited by
canon law, such as a marriage between first and second cousins, or between a
Godparent and a Godchild. The first marriage of a man and a woman is honored by
the Church with a richly symbolic service that eloquently speaks to everyone
regarding the married state. The form of the service calls upon God to unite
the couple through the prayer of the priest or bishop officiating.
The Church will permit up to,
but not more than, three marriages for any Orthodox Christian. If both partners
are entering a second or third marriage, another form of the marriage ceremony
is conducted, much more subdued and penitential in character. Marriages end
either through the death of one of the partners or through ecclesiastical
recognition of divorce. The Church grants "ecclesiastical divorces"
on the basis of the exception given by Christ to his general prohibition of the
practice. The Church has frequently deplored the rise of divorce and generally
sees divorce as a tragic failure. Yet, the Orthodox Church also recognizes that
sometimes the spiritual well-being of Christians caught in a broken and
essentially nonexistent marriage justifies a divorce, with the right of one or
both of the partners to remarry. Each parish priest is required to do all he
can to help couples resolve their differences. If they cannot, and they obtain
a civil divorce, they may apply for an ecclesiastical divorce. Only after an
ecclesiastical divorce is issued by the presiding bishop can they apply for an
ecclesiastical license to remarry.
Though the Church would prefer
that all Orthodox Christians would marry Orthodox Christians, it does not
insist on it in practice. Out of its concern for the spiritual welfare of
members who wish to marry a non-Orthodox Christian, the Church will conduct a
"mixed marriage." For this purpose, a "non-Orthodox
Christian" is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, or one of the many
Protestant Churches which believe in and baptize in the name of the Holy
Trinity. This means that such mixed marriages may be performed in the Orthodox
Church. However, the Orthodox Church does not perform marriages between
Orthodox Christians and persons belonging to other religions, such as Islam,
Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any sectarian and cult group, such as Christian
Science, Mormonism, or the followers of Rev. Moon.
Questions on
Sexual Issues
The teaching of the Orthodox
Church on sexual questions is strongly determined by the Church's attitude
toward marriage and the family. A representative Orthodox statement which shows
the centrality and importance of the family in Orthodox thinking is found in an
encyclical letter by former Archbishop Iakovos of the Greek Orthodox
Archdiocese of North and South America, issued
on the occasion of National Family Week in 1972. He stated:
"Home and family life
is the bedrock of our Orthodox life-style. The spirit that binds us together as
a people finds its deepest roots in the home where the tenderest values of
human existence, love, compassion, forbearance and mutual helpfulness thrive in
abundance."
Over the centuries and
throughout most cultures and civilizations the family has been proven to be the
unifying unit of society. Today we find the family under attack both from
within and from without. Outside forces would have us believe that the family
as we have come to know and cherish it is no longer necessary. From within, the
erosion of spiritual values and emphasis upon materialism has created for many
families confusion and uncertainty where commitment and dedication once
reigned. Marriage is holy. The home is sacred. Birth is a miracle. In these we
find the very meaning of life itself.
One aspect of the
"commitment and dedication" of the holy state of marriage and family
is cast in terms of sexual behavior. Most moral questions relating to sex are
generally best understood in the light of this high regard for marriage and the
family. Some of the questions on sexual issues addressed by the Orthodox Church
are the following:
- The
Orthodox Church remains faithful to the biblical and traditional norms
regarding premarital sexual relations between men and women. The only
appropriate and morally fitting place for the exercise of sexual
relations, according to the teachings of the Church, is marriage. The
moral teaching of the Church on this matter has been unchanging since its
foundation. In sum, the sanctity of marriage is the cornerstone of sexual
morality. The whole range of sexual activity outside marriage -
fornication, adultery and homosexuality - are thus seen as not fitting and
appropriate to the Christian way of life. Like the teaching on
fornication, the teachings of the Church on these and similar issues have
remained constant. Expressed in Scripture, the continuing Tradition of the
Church, the writings of the Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils and
the canons, these views have been restated by theologians, hierarchs and
local Orthodox churches in our own day. For example, the Decalogue
prohibits adultery. In the tradition of the Church, the second-century
Epistle of Barnabas commands "Thou shalt not be an adulterer, nor a
corrupter, nor be like to them that are such." The fourth-century
Church Father St. Basil wrote against the practice (Canons 35 and 77); and
the Quinisext Council (A.D. 691) repeated the same condemnation in its
eighty-seventh canon. All major Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States
have had occasion to repeat the condemnation of adultery.
Generally stated, fornication,
adultery, abortion, homosexuality and any form of abusive sexual behavior are
considered immoral and inappropriate forms of behavior in and of themselves,
and also because they attack the institution of marriage and the family. Two
representative statements, one on abortion and another on homosexuality, from
the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America
follow. They are from the Twenty-Third Clergy-Laity Congress held in Philadelphia in 1976. The
Orthodox Church has a definite, formal and intended attitude toward abortion.
It condemns all procedures purporting to abort the embryo or fetus, whether by
surgical or chemical means. The Orthodox Church brands abortion as murder; that
is, as a premeditated termination of the life of a human being. The only time
the Orthodox Church will reluctantly acquiesce to abortion is when the
preponderance of medical opinion determines that unless the embryo or fetus is
aborted, the mother will die. Decisions of the Supreme Court and State
legislatures by which abortion, with or without restrictions, is allowed should
be viewed by practicing Christians as an affront to their beliefs in the
sanctity of life. The position of the Orthodox Church toward homosexuality has
been expressed by synodicals, canons and patristic pronouncements beginning
with the very first centuries of Orthodox ecclesiastical life. Thus, the
Orthodox Church condemns unreservedly all expressions of personal sexual
experience which prove contrary to the definite and unalterable function
ascribed to sex by God's ordinance and expressed in man's experience as a law
of nature. The Orthodox Church believes that homosexuality should be treated by
religion as a sinful failure. In both cases, correction is called for.
Homosexuals should be accorded the confidential medical and psychiatric
facilities by which they can be helped to restore themselves to a
self-respecting sexual identity that belongs to them by God's ordinance. In
full confidentiality the Orthodox Church cares and provides pastorally for
homosexuals in the belief that no sinner who has failed himself and God should
be allowed to deteriorate morally and spiritually. Psychiatric reconciliation
is bound to prove short-lived. Marriage
is only conducted and recognized in the Orthodox Church as taking place between
a man and a woman. Same-sex marriages are a contradiction in terms. The
Orthodox Church does not allow for same-sex marriages.
- The
possible exception to the above affirmation of continuity of teaching is
the view of the Orthodox Church on the issue of contraception. Because of
the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of
reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with
contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox
writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain
contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing
children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.
Euthanasia
The Church accompanies its
faithful from even before birth, through all the steps of life to death and
beyond, with its prayers, rites, sacraments, preaching, teaching, and its love,
faith and hope. All of life, and even death itself, are drawn into the realm of
the life of the Church. Death is seen as evil in itself, and symbolic of all those
forces which oppose God-given life and its fulfillment. Salvation and
redemption are normally understood in Eastern Christianity in terms of sharing
in Jesus Christ's victory over death, sin and evil through His Crucifixion and
His Resurrection. The Orthodox Church has a very strong pro-life stand which in
part expresses itself in opposition to doctrinaire advocacy of euthanasia.
Euthanasia is understood to be
the view or practice which holds that a person has the right, and even the
moral obligation, to end his or her life when it is considered to be - for
whatever subjectively accepted reason - "not worth living."
Euthanasia advocates nearly always include in this assertion the right and duty
of others, including medical personnel, to assist the person in fulfilling this
purpose. Needless to say, the Orthodox Church rejects such a view, seeing such
behavior as a form of suicide on the part of the individual, and a form of
murder on a part of others who assist in this practice, both of which are seen
as sins.
Thus the Orthodox Church, in
the words of 1976 Christmas encyclical of former Archbishop Iakovos, considers
"euthanasia and abortion, along with homosexuality ... a ... moral
alienation." Modern medical practice, however, has affected another part of
the Church's perspective. The Church does not expect that excessive and heroic
means must be used at all costs to prolong dying, as has now become possible
through technical medical advances. As current Orthodox theology expresses it:
"The Church distinguishes
between euthanasia and the withholding of extraordinary means to prolong life.
It affirms the sanctity of human life and man's God-given responsibility to
preserve life. But it rejects an attitude which disregards the inevitability of
physical death."
This means that the Church may
even pray that terminally ill persons die, without insisting that they be
subjected to unnecessary and extraordinary medical efforts. At the same time,
the Church rejects as morally wrong any willed action on the part of an
individual to cause his or her own death or the death of another, when it
otherwise would not occur.
The
Church and Politics
Though there are many names by
which the Orthodox Church is known, perhaps the most hallowed name is that
which is used to designate the Church in the Nicene Creed - "... One, Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church." The Orthodox hold that this phrase
precisely describes the Orthodox Church. What each of these words means in its
fullness is the subject of many deep and thoughtful theological articles and
books.
The word "catholic"
in this name of the Church has provoked many such efforts at understanding. It
can and does mean the universal perspective and outreach of the Church, which
transcends national, racial and cultural boundaries. It can and does imply, as
well, the outlook of the Church toward the created world and toward human
affairs, which refuses to accept a compartmentalized self-undestanding that
restricts the interests and concerns of the Church to a narrowly defined "religious
sphere."
The Orthodox Church, throughout
its history, has both used and encouraged the arts, culture and education, and
has addressed the whole range of social and public phenomena. Among these have
been its relationship with government in general, and the exercise of civil
power in concrete circumstances, i.e., politics. As a general principle, the
Orthodox Church has held a position on the ideal of Church and State relations
which may be called "the principle of synergy." It is to be distinguished
from a sharp division of Church and State on the one hand, and a total fusion
of Church and State, on the other hand. It recognizes and espouses a clear
demarcation between Church and State, while calling for a cooperative
relationship between the two.
It is readily admitted that
even when conditions for the implementation of such an ideal were most
favorable, the ideal was not always fulfilled and realized. However, the
historical example for the principle of synergy in Church and State
relationships is the model of the Byzantine Empire, which lasted over a
thousand yeas (324 -1453). Recent scholarship has rejected the older viewpoint
that in Byzantium the Church was subservient to
the State, and now recognizes that the view of the Byzantine Church
on this question was misunderstood by earlier researchers. In the practical
area of political life, it is nearly always impossible fully to realize the
principle of synergy, but the Church has supported a range of attitudes which
allow it to become involved in the political process on the one hand, while
retaining its clear distinction from, and transcendence to it, on the other.
Briefly stated, these are some
of the guidelines which direct the Orthodox attitude toward involvement in
politics by the Church:
- Upholding
its own vision of the Kingdom
of God.
Uppermost in the mind of the Church is its prayer that human relations of
all kinds might be incorporated into the Kingdom of God.
Such a sacramentally oriented perspective, based on the words of the
Lord's Prayer, "Thy kingdom come on earth, as it is in heaven,"
when applied to the distinct God-established realm of governmental and
political life does not mean the submission of the State to the Church,
but rather the acceptance by the State of the God-like principles of
justice, equity, genuine service and care, and mutuality. Though the State
is not "under the Church" as is the case with everything else -
ideally it should in fact and practice be "under God."
- Adaptation
to the Political Realities of Time and Place. The Orthodox Church
readily recognizes that in this day and age no single nation comes close
to a realization of its ideal model. The Church finds itself, however,
living under many different political systems and environments. Its chief
patriarchate, that of Constantinople, is under persecution in a
Moslem-dominated country, Turkey.
Another of its patriarchates, Jerusalem,
functions in a theocratic Jewish State. Its largest patriarchate, Moscow, has lived a
precarious life of bare legality, shifting from periods of relative
tolerance to periods of overt persecution. One of its most active and
vigorous patriarchal churches, in Romania, has worked out a
unique modus vivendi with a government somewhat sympathetic, yet
officially atheistic and Communist. Another of its larger national
churches, that of Greece,
is struggling to maintain the equilibrium between Church and State. On the
other hand, the numerous Churches created by emigration from traditionally
Orthodox countries enjoy freedom of religious practice, together with an
obscurity enforced by their minority status in numerous western-style
democracies, such as England,
Germany, France, the United
States, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand and Japan. The Orthodox also seek
to relate in some way with other systems of government not so easy to
categorize, such as in the various nations of South America, and in such
disparate places as Uganda,
Kenya, Tanzania, Egypt
and South Korea.
As can be understood, the
adaptations of the ideal of synergy to reality must be varied in practice, and
far from homogeneous. Nevertheless, certain modes of political relationship
continue to be fostered by the Church. These include good citizenship, pursuit
of Church rights, official nonpartisanship, preference for lay leadership,
support of justice, limited advocacy for the right of revolution, and the
unique case of ethnarchy. Space allows only a few general comments on each of
these.
Practical guidelines from
biblical times and throughout its history, the Church has always fostered
values which encourage good citizenship, regardless of the particular system of
government. The Church fosters obedience to just laws, and even to unjust ones
for the sake of the greater good. To this category belongs the fostering of
appropriate ethnic and cultural identification, the support of military
service, and the defense of the nation. The Church has also encouraged public
service on the part of citizens, and philanthropies for the general good.
Traditionally, the Church
understands that one of its chief rights before the State is freedom to worship
and function as a Church. Therefore, one of its major concerns is to assure its
freedom, and to restrict or eliminate what it views as the improper
interference of the State in the life of the Church. Byzantine history has many
examples of the Church opposing the policies of emperors who were considered to
be improperly interfering in Church affairs. It must also be noted, however,
that the Church often welcomed the involvement of the emperors when the Church
judged that this involvement served its interests.
By and large, the Church is
content to let the various political processes function in a way which
separates the Church from partisan politics by maintaining a stance of general
non-partisanship. Regardless of the political system of the nation and
government, the Church is prepared to pray for the leader, in accordance with
New Testament teaching. In democracies, this means that the Church seeks,
insofar as its other purposes allow, to avoid partisan politics, neither
formally opposing nor endorsing political candidates. Historically, only
officials who imposed heretical teachings on the Church, or persecuted the
Church, might be personally condemned; but even in these cases there was a certain
hesitancy. By and large, hierarchs and other clergy do not seek to exercise
political power, with the exception of the exercise of "ethnarchy," a
unique institution discussed below.
The official Church strongly
prefers that its laity be involved in government and politics, and embody
Christian values to the extent possible given the governmental and political
systems in force. This approach avoids the evils of a theocratic system, while
encouraging a more general lay involvement in the embodiment of the ideal of
the Kingdom of Heaven in Church-State relationships.
The basic role of government is
to provide protection and to ensure justice. The Church sees God as the source
of justice; therefore, it shares His concern about justice within the State. In
the political process, which seeks to embody justice, there are numerous means
by which the Church has sought to further its concern for justice. In the
ancient imperial system, churchmen had not only sought to form the character
and conscience of the Emperor in general, but frequently "whispered in the
ear of the emperor" with reference to specific issues. The Church was a
force for the improvement of laws, "toward greater philanthropy." In
present-day democratic societies Orthodox hierarchs, ecclesiastical bodies, and
even individual Orthodox Christians, must often publicly protest injustice,
participate in the legislative process, and use other political means to
further political issues with moral implications.
By and large, the Church
approves stability of government and does not encourage revolution. Just as it
recognizes the great evil in war, yet at times understands and accepts the need
to wage war in defense of the homeland, so also, but even more reluctantly,
does it accept the right to revolution in cases of severe and unbearable
injustice. In most cases, the Church's support of revolutionary causes has been
related to efforts of national independence.
However, there is nothing in
the tradition which would reject out of hand revolutions which are motivated by
a sense of unbearably oppressive injustice in other spheres. Such concerns, as
embodied in modern day "Liberation Theology" movements, have their
antecedents in the writings of Church Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom, who
railed against the exploitation of the poor by the rich. What the Orthodox
Church finds unnecessary and unacceptable in "Liberation Theology" is
the Marxist theoretical underpinnings of this theological movement. However,
its concern for the downtrodden and the exploited is recognized to be essential
Christianity.
The Concept
of "Ethnarchy"
Eastern Orthodoxy has a unique
institution in its history, known as "ethnarchy," which appears to
contradict nearly everything which has been noted above about the Church's
attitude regarding practical involvement. "Ethnarchy" occurs when the
highest ecclesiastical leader of the Church in a given area assumes political
leadership. An excellent embodiment of the principles of "ethnarchy"
was the assumption of authority as chief-of-state of Greece by Archbishop Damaskinos
following the German withdrawal at the end of World War II. The most recent
case was the assumption of the presidency of Cyprus by Archbishop Makarios.
This rarely practiced
institution occurs only in periods of crisis, when lay civil leaders cannot,
because of extraordinary reasons, exercise normal political powers. When only a
Church leader seems to be able to embody the identity of the people of the
nation, the hierarch may assume political and government leadership by general
consensus. It is all-important that such an exercise of political power should
be only temporary and exceptional, until the regrouping of political forces in
the nation allows the resumption of power by the lay leaders of the nation.
Human
Rights
In the portion of Orthodox
theological doctrine which deals with humanity, there is much emphasis on the
creation of human beings in the "image and likeness of God." Many
Fathers of the Church make a distinction between the two terms. The "likeness"
is the high spiritual calling of every human being, to become "God
like," which is only made possible by the saving work of Jesus Christ and
the power of the Holy Spirit, which is first and foremost realized in the life
of the Church. The "image," however, is the commonly held nature of
all human beings. Though sin has had its impact upon human nature, so that all
of our faculties are in some measure darkened and distorted, the Orthodox see
human beings as still possessing a strong residue of the God-given likeness
which is the essence of our humanity. Our intelligence, our power of
self-determination, our aesthetic sense, our creativity, our moral perception,
our integration of the individual and the social into our personhood, and
numerous other characteristics provide manifestations of such likeness.
Since all people share in the
divine image, all persons enjoy a basic and fundamental human dignity before
God, simply because they are human. As a result, God treats people with a
fundamental dignity and respect, and expects that people will treat each other
in the same way. The Bible teaches that "God is not a respecter of
persons," in the sense that He treats us all with equal dignity and
respect as regards our basic humanity. This does not mean, of course, that there
are also not legitimate roles and functions enjoyed by everybody in their
social, economic, political and even ecclesiastical relations. Nevertheless,
all persons are entitled to a fundamental respect and treatment by others,
simply because they are human beings, created in the image of God.
They need not accomplish
anything, hold any rank, or possess anything, to "earn" this
fundamental dignity. In our own days, this dignity has come to be stated in
terms of "rights." Historically, it had been stated in terms of
"duties." These are two sides of the same coin, the first being a
claim of the individual seeking an acknowledgment and treatment based on his or
her human dignity, while the second is the responsibility of the other person
to accord the respect which is due each person as a human being. Regardless of
how the question is approached, the Church teaches that people have fundamental
rights based on their dignity as human beings created in the image of God. In
this spirit, the 25th Clergy-Laity Congress of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
held at Atlanta
in 1980 decried governmental actions which deny basic human dignity and rights:
"We disapprove of
governmental policies and actions which violate the unalienable rights of all
men to freedom and human dignity. We are disillusioned and dismayed at the
selective and hypocritical manner in which armed aggression and the violation
of human rights by some nations are condemned, while similar acts by others are
either ignored, or even worse, shamelessly justified. We express our
indignation at the gross insensitivity of the so-called great or superpowers of
the world toward small and defenseless nations and racial minorities of the
world, and the cynical manner in which they are used or abused by these powers
to further what they believe to be their interests or the interests of their
allies. The blacks in South Africa, the Thais and the Tibetans, the Georgians,
Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians in the Soviet Union, the
Afghans and the Kurds in both Iran and Turkey; the Greek Cypriots in Cyprus,
the Greeks in Northern Epirus, the Armenian and Greek minorities in Turkey -
all these and many others are not included among the concerns of these powers
unless they can serve as useful and valuable pawns in their political chess
game."
A general concern for human
rights - regardless of power, numbers, and strength - is evident in this
statement, and can be particularized to certain specific cases, as well. Thus,
each of the Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States, with their specific
ethnic backgrounds, has a special concern for the peoples of their own heritage
and the violation of the rights they are entitled to enjoy. Thus, the Greek
Orthodox Archdiocese evinces special concern for the Greek minority in Turkey, the Cypriot question, and the Greek
minority in Albania.
The Orthodox Church in America,
which is Russian in background, concerns itself with the free exercise of
religion in the Soviet Union and the rights of
dissidents, especially those who are religiously motivated. The Antiochian
Archdiocese has a special concern for the rights of minority Orthodox
Christians in Israel
and with the Palestinian and Lebanese situations.
All life is precious, but God
uniquely creates human life in the "image and likeness of God." Human
life as such is deserving of deep respect and individual human beings are to be
treated in accordance to their inherent human dignity. Thus, racism, unjust
prejudicial treatment of men and women, genocide, forms of sexual exploitation,
domestic violence, child abuse, rape, theft or destruction of legitimately
owned property, deceptions and deceit, environmental plunder and other such
manipulative behaviors violate the human dignity of others. Human life as a
gift of God should be respected.
Women's
Rights
Another important area of human
rights concerns is the women's liberation issue. The Church has attempted to
avoid the reactionary male chauvinist stance, no less than a shrill feminism.
The balance between recognition and practical support of the basic human rights
of women on the one hand, and the great concern for the role of women in family
life on the other, has produced a not-so-easy to categorize stance on the part
of the Church. It is probably most sharply illustrated by the actions of the
1980 Clergy-Laity Congress of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese on the proposed
Equal Rights Amendment:
"... we believe and
support the proposition that equality of rights shall not be denied or abridged
under the terms of any law solely because of sex."
The Orthodox are adamantly
opposed to the ordination of women as liturgical clergy. There have been
articles and books by both men and women theologians supporting this stand. At
present, there is no movement within Orthodoxy for this innovation.
Bioethics
A few Orthodox writers have
indicated concern for the bioethical questions which have arisen as a result of
the development of highly technical methods of health care. They have been
categorized into questions dealing with the "protection of life" and
the "transmission of life." Under the first rubric, some of the
issues are the allocation of scarce medical resources, patient rights, human
experimentation, abortion, child abuse, organ transplantation, the giving of
bodies to science, the treatment of an increasingly aged population, questions
of euthanasia and allowing terminal patients to die. Some of the most
interesting questions belong to concepts centered on the very transmission of
life: artificial insemination, artificial inovulation, in vitro fertilization,
sterilization, genetic counseling and genetic screening as well as genetic
engineering.
While no official positions
have been formulated on these topics by the Church, theological opinions by
Church theologians are beginning to be formed. In an encyclopedia article on
these topics, there is a good general statement on bioethics. The common
denominator of all the issues discussed is the high regard and concern of the
Church for human life as a gift of God. Orthodoxy tends to take a conservative
approach to these issues, seeing in them a dimension of the holy, and relating
them to transcendent values and concerns. An intense respect for human life is
needed to hold the reins upon those who would attack it. The human person, from
the very moment of conception, is dependent upon others for life and
sustenance. It is in the community of the living, especially as it relates to
the source of life, God in the Trinity, that life is conceived, nurtured,
developed and fulfilled. The trust we have in others for the continued
well-being of our own lives forms the basis for generalization. Eastern
Orthodox ethics, consequently, functions with a pro-life bias that honors and
respects the life of each person as a divine gift which requires development
and enhancement.
To put it briefly, the views
expressed by some theologians (without official sanction) on these
controversial topics follow, though in an abbreviated form because of the lack
of space:
- Scarce
medical resources should be allocated on the basis of justice and need,
and not only on the ability to pay.
- Patients
have rights which should be honored by the medical profession.
- In
principle human experimentation cannot be prohibited, for the sake of the
patients themselves and the well-being of others, but great care in
respecting the dignity and integrity of the patients must be maintained,
while the use of experimentation should be governed by strict rules of
scientific necessity and informed consent.
- Organ
transplantation cannot be prohibited, but the chance of success should be
high, taking the real need into account, evaluating carefully the impact
on both donors and recipients.
- While
no one is obligated to give an organ, such a donation should be encouraged
as an expression of Christian love; on the other hand, organ transplants
from the dead involve different problems - in particular, the hastening of
the death of the potential giver for the sake of the potential recipient,
which is considered wrong.
- Artificial
insemination by a husband (AIH) is not rejected, but artificial
insemination by donor (AID) is considered an improper intrusion of a third
party in the sanctity of the marital relation.
- In
vitro fertilization is looked upon with great doubt because present
methods cause the destruction of numerous human fertilized ova and even
developing fetuses; this is still a form of abortion.
- Genetic
counseling and screening cannot be objected to in principle and in fact
should be encouraged.
Donation of
Organs
Although
nothing in the Orthodox tradition requires the faithful to donate their organs
to others, never the less, this practice may be considered an act of love, and
as such is encouraged. The decision to donate a duplicate organ, such as a
kidney, while the donor is living, requires much consideration and should be
made in consultation with medical professionals and one's spiritual father.
The donation of an organ from a deceased person is also an act of love that
helps to make possible for the recipient a longer, fuller life. Such donations
are acceptable if the deceased donor had willed such action, or if surviving
relatives permit it providing that it was in harmony with the desires of the
deceased. Such actions can be approved as an expression of love and if they
express the self-determination of the donor. In all cases, respect for the body
of the donor should be maintained.
Organ transplants should never
be commercialized nor coerced nor take placed without proper consent, nor
place in jeopardy the identity of the donor or recipient, such as the use of
animal organs. Nor should the death of the donor be hastened in order to
harvest organs for transplantation to another person.
Autopsy
When
a person dies for reasons that are uncertain, a qualified medical examiner
may, with the permission of the next of kin, perform an autopsy to determine
the cause of death. In some states, this is required by law. In all cases,
however, the Orthodox Church expects that the body of the deceased be treated
with respect and dignity.
AIDS
The recent spread of the AIDS
virus has provoked much concern throughout the world and for Orthodox
Christians, as well. The Orthodox address this question on several levels.
First, the Church always looks upon those who are ill with compassion, and
prays for healing. We encourage the medical profession to continue seeking for
the appropriate medications to heal this disease. But at the same time, we note
that the major causes for the spread of this disease are behaviors which the
Church has always taught are immoral and ought not to be practiced: homosexual
behavior, promiscuity, and narcotic drugs (the use of contaminated needles).
Love and caring for all persons provokes the Church to re-affirm its teaching.
The best prevention against the AIDS virus is virtue.
Some have raised the question
of possible contamination through the Communion Spoon and the possible change
of the method for administering Holy Communion. There have been other methods
for the administration of the Sacrament in the Church, in the past. In
principle, therefore, the method could change again. Nevertheless, several
strong reasons would argue against it. Theologically, the Orthodox Church
cannot accept that the Sacrament would be a source of illness, since it teaches
that it is a "medicine of immortality." Further, not one single case
of the transmission of any illness has been shown empirically as coming from
participation in the Sacrament. In addition, scientific evidence points to
another reason for this as well: it appears that saliva inhibits the
transmission of all kinds of microbes, including the AIDS virus (Journal of the
American Dental Association, May, 1988). Should the Church change its method of
administering the sacrament, it should do so for its own reasons and not those provoked
by unreasonable fear.
Converts
and Proselytism
Missionary activity is an
essential part of the life of the Church. The great commission to the Church, "Go ye into the world, and preach the
gospel to all nations," provides the Church with its mission to bring
people into its life. The goal and purpose of mission is to bring new people
into the life of salvation as realized in the character (ethos) and
sacramental experience of the Church. Consequently, the Orthodox Church
conducts missionary activities in many parts of the world.
This aspect of Orthodox Church
life, strong enough during its first fourteen centuries, was severely hampered
when much of the Orthodox Church fell under the political domination of Moslem
powers; the great exception was the Church
of Russia, which continued its own
missionary work in the Eastern parts of Russia
and the Far East. During the period of
subjugation to the Ottoman Empire,
missionaries from Roman Catholic and Protestant countries came into Orthodox
lands and sought to convert the Orthodox to their own professions of
Christianity. Both had a measure of success as a result of their proselytizing
efforts. These two facts, the requirement of missionary activity, on the one
hand, and the reaction to proselytizing, on the other, have formed the
present-day policies of the Orthodox Church regarding missionary work among
non-Christians, converts, and proselytism in both directions. The last few
decades have seen a resurgence of missionary efforts by the Orthodox in places
like Uganda, Kenya, South Korea,
and Alaska.
Dealing
with other Christians
The experience of being subject
to massive proselytizing efforts has caused the formulation of a multifaceted
policy.
First, it has meant that
Orthodoxy has sought to influence other churches, primarily through the
ecumenical movement, to renounce systematic proselytizing programs. The
opposition to such organized "sheep-stealing" programs has been
generally accepted in the ecumenical movement and they are not now widely practiced.
Second, the Orthodox do not
themselves practice "proselytism" in the sense that they do not
actively seek to cause the disaffection of others from their non-Orthodox
Christian faiths. This does not mean, however, that anyone seeking to learn about
the Orthodox Faith will be turned away. Converts are not readily accepted
unless they learn as much as possible about the Orthodox Faith before they make
a decision to join it. Following instruction, close examination, and the
expression of strong willingness to convert, they may be received into the
Orthodox Church, some merely by declaration and repetition of the Creed, and
others (the majority), by means of the sacrament of Holy Anointing
(Chrismation).
Third, if an Orthodox Christian
is formally received into membership by another (non-Orthodox) Church and
receives Holy Communion in that Church, he or she becomes an apostate
(apostates). Such a person is not considered to be an Orthodox Christian any
longer, and may not receive Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church, nor serve at
a baptism or wedding as a sponsor. Should such persons seek to return to the
Orthodox Church, they are received back into the Church through a profession of
faith, and the sacrament of Chrismation.
Suicide
Suicide is the taking of one's
own life. The Orthodox Church has, over the centuries, taught that we do not
have the right to take our own lives, since life is a gift from God which we
are called upon to preserve and enhance. Hence, the Church considers direct
suicide, when a person destroys his or her life with his or her own hand, to be
the most serious kind of murder, because there is no opportunity for
repentance. The canons and practice of the Church thus prohibit a Church burial
to a person who has committed suicide. However, if it can be shown that the
person who has committed suicide was not mentally sound, then, upon proper
medical and ecclesiastical certification, the burial can be conducted by the
Church. In cases, however, where the deceased held a philosophical view affirming
the right to suicide, or allowed despair to overcome good judgment, no such
allowance can be made.
Morally speaking, there is also
the case of indirect suicide, in which people harm their health through abusive
practices such as excessive smoking, excessive drinking of alcoholic beverages,
and unnecessary risk-taking. The Orthodox Church teaches that we are obligated
to care for our health, so these kinds of practices in fact are looked upon as
immoral. However, they do not carry the same negative implications which the
direct taking of one's own life has.
Cremation
Because
the Orthodox Faith affirms the fundamental goodness of creation, it
understands the body to be an integral part of the human person and the temple
of the Holy Spirit, and expects the resurrection of the dead. The Church considers
cremation to be the deliberate desecration and destruction of what God has made
and ordained for us. The Church instead insists that the body be buried so that
the natural physical process of decomposition may take place. The Church does
not grant funerals, either in the sanctuary, or at the funeral home, or at any
other place, to persons who have chosen to be cremated. Additionally, memorial
services with kolyva (boiled wheat) are not allowed in such instances, inasmuch
as the similarity between the "kernel of wheat" and the
"body" has been intentionally destroyed.
-Rev. Stanley Harakas, Th.D.
