Part I
What I am presenting is observations and questions, nothing more. The children of the Greek Orthodox faith stand before a challenge. It is not possible for them to be isolated from what is happening. They cannot but be affected and suffer. They have their witness, amidst the suffering, which they draw from their faith in the Lord Jesus, their faithfulness to him, and their embrace of those who participate with them in the reality of the one nation.
With this in mind, I’ll say that I read in the newspaper an-Nahar last Monday June 25, 2012, in the local section, an article written by Pierre Atallah. I read it more than once. The article is exposition and commentary. It presents the position expressed by His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, for the second time in about a year, that “the Church of Antioch’s position regarding [current] events is expressed exclusively by the patriarch and was defined by the Holy Synod at its meeting that was held in Lebanon last year.” This was the exposition. As for the commentary, the writer of the article transmits two commentaries. One of them from someone described as a lay official with close connections to the institution of the Church. The other is from someone who is said to be an Orthodox Syrian activist, one of the supporters of the Syrian opposition. The lay official states—in his words—“ Patriarch Hazim’s position is the historical political position of the Church that is careful to have the best relations with changing rulers and to not conspire against them but at the same time to not stand as an impediment against the movement of peoples and change.” He continues, saying that the Church condemns “oppression and violence and does not intervene in politics except when they oppose morals and values.” He closes by pointing out that “the one who speaks for the Church is the Holy Synod” and that “any position aside from this… “is a personal opinion and the one expressing it alone bears full responsibility for it.”
Additionally, the official expresses the discontent of “the institution of the Church”—an expression he uses twice—with the description of Syria’s Christians as “minorities”, rather emphasizing that they are citizens “who interact with their environment and their people.”
As for the Orthodox activist, it drew my attention, without going into details, his explanation “the Church as a whole does not want the bishops [pointing out the particular position of one of them] to be tied to any particular political situation, realizing the critical and sensitive nature of the Syrian situation. This is the reason for it keeps the best relations with the Muslims [it appears that he means the Sunni numerical majority].” In light of this fact, the activist affirms something very important, that “the majority of Christians in Syria seek a life in security, quiet, and peace with all components of the Syrian people without any discrimination.”
The sentiment hidden behind what both the “lay official” and the “Orthodox activist” express is without a doubt striking. The expectation is for a position in which the Orthodox—and Christians in general—interact with each element of the people without discrimination. But how are these positions embodied? The verbal formula by which this position is expressed is ambiguous, and thus impractical.
In my opinion, two things are clear: the first is that the majority of Greek Orthodox, even if in their deepest convictions they desired neutrality and sought to live in security, calm, and peace with all elements of the people, it is impossible for them, amidst the current conflict, to realize this. Even if we assumed for the sake of argument that they do not desire to take a political position, others will drag them against their will into what they do not want, or else they will consider them enemies. Secondly, the positions of the lay official and the Orthodox activist are academic and of no use on the ground. Perhaps they include intellectually correct elements, but it has a difficult ring in others’ ears, not to say hostile!
What do I mean?
It is absolutely true that the government is changing and that the people are moving. However, in the background of the current reality, does your statement not imply that there is no problem for you if the Syrian opposition succeeds in undermining the currently extant regime? Do you not think that if you held such an intent and reveal it, even implicitly, as a wink at the other side, then dealing with you will be under the assumption that you are an enemy of--or even a conspirator against—the current regime?! Then what chance remains for you after this, for having the best possible relationship to the government?!
From another perspective, in your weighing between the government and the people, do you not think (once more in the context the current situation) that your declaration that you do not stand “as an impediment to the movement of the people and change” means that you consider the Syrian opposition to be the people and that you lend it “the Church’s” legitimacy in its effort to strike down the existing political regime?! In this case, have you not turned a blind eye to the entrenched sectarian aspect of the crisis, and to the fact that the current spectacle is not only the spectacle of a local political conflict, but also the spectacle of a fierce regional and international conflict?! Do you think that this position of yours will result in good or disaster for the presence of Christians in these parts?!
I do not wish to go into the matter of the Church condemning oppression and violence. This is, in principle, true and self-evident, there’s no debate about it. My question is just, in the context of what is going on, whether oppression and violence is the language of all those fighting, even to varying degrees and in distinct ways? Is there, in the struggle of killers and those being killed, those who stand among the sheep and those who stand among the wolves? Is there, in any sense, “clean” violence in this world? Do we not agree with the words of the Lord, “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword”? Is not the only “clean” violence that we know in this world is for us to accept being persecuted and even to be killed as a testimony to God’s truth? Apart from this, all violence is oppressive and tainted with sin for us!
Likewise saying that the Church does not enter into politics except when they oppose values and morals. This is a complicated topic. It is sufficient for me to say that we are no longer in a Christian world. The morals and values among us are not all the same. Even Christians have come to have various approaches, no longer having a single approach, to the issue of morals and values in politics. So who made us a watchtower and authorized us to intervene? These are words spoken into the wind! Perhaps here or there we can protest about an issue that is absolutely clear. But politics, realistically, are immersed in sharp moral and ethical difficulties, and the Church has no place in them and no say! The kingdom of Christ is not of this world even if we strive to bear witness to it in this world. When two brothers came to the Lord Jesus and asked him, “Tell my brother to share the inheritance with me,” what was the response? “Who made me judge over you?” Not once did the Lord Jesus have a political position, in the political sense, despite the suffering of the Hebrew people during the time of Roman colonialism. Even when the Lord Christ described Herod as a “fox”, it was not a position about it as a ruler, but rather a description of his reality as a person!
As for considering His Beatitude the Patriarch, as delegated by the Holy Synod, the exclusive spokesman for the position of the Orthodox Church, is to prevent the spread of a chaos of private opinions that claim to speak in the name of the Orthodox as a community. This is in order to preserve the well-being of the children of the faith and their unity in the Church and to raise their witness to love in the nation. It goes without saying that the Church’s position in this situation is inspired by true, living faith and rises above—and encourages us to rise above—political and sectarian divisions. Hence the Church’s position regarding current conflicts is not a political position in the way that others have political positions. The Orthodox as individuals can naturally adopt political positions, if they so desire, which express their witness to Christ and their Church and I have nothing to say about this. We are a Church community and not a pagan tribe! As for the Church as a church, it has no political position. The Church does not deal with political positions. Political positions divide, while the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Holy Synod, bishops and patriarch in the name of the Synod, is from above and is to gather together and unify. It is the symbol of the unity of faith in Christ in Antioch. It is normal for a bishop of the Church, as a person, to prefer one political ideology over others, but he should realize, as a man of God, within himself, political thought is one thing and political practice is something else. For this reason, he should be careful to avoid speaking for any political orientation, whatever it may be, whether on the level of thought—lest he be misunderstood and made to say something other than what he says—or on the level of practice—lest he be found to be a cause of division. The Church deals with people regardless of their political positions. Indeed, the Church distinguishes between people and their positions. She engages them in any situation and does not necessarily engage their positions. This is contrary to the common practice that equates positions to those holding them. In the next essay, God permitting, I will deal with the issue of this distinction and its importance.
Part II
We are still speaking within the context of politics.
There is a distinction in the Church between the person and his opinion and it is the starting-point for how we deal with each other. In any situation, we are committed to the person without regard to his opinion. No matter how perverse his opinion may be, this should not affect our commitment to him. The correctness of his opinion, in our view, should not increase our commitment to him, nor should the error of his position opinion the power of this commitment. The sole commandment that we believers in Jesus Christ have received is for us to be committed: “Love one another as I have loved you.” This is not the love that members of a tribe have for each other. We are not a tribe. This is our loving the entire world with the love that God has for us. The sign that we practice it in deed and not just in word is that we, as the people of the house of God are bound, in spirit and in truth, to the utmost limits of the commandment of love: “Love your enemies. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who do you harm and persecute you.”
The difference between equating a position with the one holding it and distinguishing the person from his opinion is great. In the first case, we are standing before a human reaction. In the second case, we are before a divine impulse. In the first case, we stand before a human whom we have objectified. In the second case, we are before a being like us, who has what we have, who was brought out of nothing into being by the all-surpassing love of God. In the first case, we honor people because their opinions are compatible with our own. In the second case we honor others as a way of honoring God. In the first case, we fall in our selfishness. In the second case we rise in our otherness. In the first case, we judge people on the basis of our own opinion. In the second case, we respect people's right to have an opinion that is different from our own. In the first case, we stand before our conviction in the absoluteness of our opinion. In the second case, we are before the relative nature of how people express their opinions in truth. In the first case, we act, implicitly, as though we regard ourselves as infallible. In the second case, we act implicitly as though we regard ourselves as subject to making mistakes. In the first case, we act as though we regard ourselves as self-sufficient. In the second case, we act as though we regard ourselves as completed through others. In the first case, we seek our enmity to establish ourselves. In the second case, we seek our brotherhood, to establish that God is with us and among us. In the first case, we are prepared to go so far as to eliminate others, in one way or another, and we think that in this way we make the truth or offer a service to God. In the second case, we are prepared to go so far as to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of others, realizing the truth and imitating the Lord Jesus Christ! Finally, in the first case we stand before self-love, while in the second case we stand before God’s love with all our heart and soul and strength.
Relying on the distinction between a person and his opinion and being committed to the person in any situation is something difficult, you say? Indeed, it's humanly impossible! You say that it is theoretical? Not at all, it is spiritual, a work of the Spirit of God! It is theoretical if one does not know or does not follow things spiritual! You say that it is unrealistic? Not at all, it is very realistic! The important thing is which realism you mean. There is realism and then there is realism. There is purely human realism. Perhaps this is what you mean. Within the framework of this realism, what I am saying is naturally unrealistic! But there is theantrhopic realism that responds to the reality that the Son of God entered into our life through His incarnation! Within the framework of this new reality, what I am saying is not only realistic, but also intuitive!
And so, distinguishing between the ruler and his regime or between any group and the political opinions that they adopt is not only necessitated by the nature of the new life, exemplified in the consciousness of the believer, in the Church of Christ—it can only come out of true, authentic love in Christ. This does not come from fabrication, play-acting, or trading in words. It comes from exemplifying God’s love in the heart. And exemplifying God’s love comes from keeping the commandment. At the moment when we follow the commandment, God dwells within us and we are filled with love from His love. “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him” (John 14:23).
Either Christ is with us and among us or we have nothing whatsoever to bring us together and unite us. We remain divided in our hearts, opposing each other in our intentions. Either the love of Christ or the stench of death! There is no substitute for divine love! What people say about us is worthless. People make judgments according to appearances. What God says has value, and God is the God of hearts. So the choice is between our authenticity in love and going astray, no matter how elaborate and researched our opinions may be! Then authenticity alone will bring about inner uprightness. When we walk in uprightness we are no longer concerned with pleasing people, but rather we are concerned with pleasing God. We no longer love them as they want, by going along with what they desire, but as God wants us to love them. We do not applaud their desires, fearing them or selling out. Instead, we bear witness to divine truth in their face, for their salvation and to the glory of God. We do not behave hypocritically, seeking cowardly profit, whether personal or for the community, or seeking to protect those in power. “God must be obeyed, not people.” So we obey God’s word and bear witness to it, even if the price is the martyrdom of blood! We have no profits and no privileges here! The people of the house of God are concerned with the kingdom and nothing else!
However, from the love of God and from the love of God alone within us, two things emerge, without which we have no true testimony: divine wisdom and the courage that is from above. If it is wise for us to be silent like the Lord Jesus before Pilate, then wisdom is what will inspire us to this. And if it is wise for us to speak like the Apostle Paul spoke before the ruler Faustus and the governor Felix, then we will speak the divine word of truth and not keep silent. If it is of God’s wisdom for us to say in all courage to those who are dealing with us what we see in them, it is not possible for us to hold back and keep faith in God. In the fourth century, Saint Basil the Great was not afraid of the Arian governor Modestus when he wanted to crush his resistance. Rather he said to him frankly, “The ruler does not believe in the true faith. You are heretics!” In 1922 when Saint Tikhon, the Russian patriarch, was brought before a Soviet tribunal and was asked by its head, “Do you consider the laws in force in the country to be unjust,” he did not hesitate to reply, “Yes, I consider them unjust!”
A beautiful account of the firmness of the faithful, when required, is found in the life of the martyr Saint Christopher, Patriarch of Antioch (d. 967). It is said that a priest who was a physician fell into a minor sin and the patriarch imposed a penance upon him. The priest asked one of the Hamdanid emirs to intervene, as he was a dear physician to him. When the emir asked the patriarch to pardon him, he replied, “It is not possible for me to do that, my lord.” He said, “Do you not fear me? What is it that you cannot do if I command you to do it?” He replied, “That which pertains to my religion, my dogma, and my law, because we are in your obedience and in other matters we cannot disobey you. But regarding that which has been set aside by religion, we are prepared to be imprisoned and beheaded. The emir said, “In any case, let me know what this offence is, that touches upon your religion.” The patriarch responded, “Before this, O emir, it was a minor crime and easy to put aright. But now it is great and impossible to pardon, since it is not permitted for a priest to appeal to you, a Muslim who is against our belief, in a matter that pertains to the Church and no one else.
For this reason we deal with rulers and those in whose midst God has planted us with true, pure, unwavering love. We love them and do not show them favor. We trust them in truth and do not endorse their passions. We pray from the heart that the Lord God will grant them His wisdom, keep them, and repel from them every trick of the Enemy, for their contentment, the people’s good, and God’s glory. We encourage them in truth and do not fear them in falsehood. We participate with them in suffering and sacrifice for the nation, and we share in their consolation. We weep with those who week and rejoice with those who are joyful. We do not participate in their sins, but we participate in their suffering even if their sins are not our sins! We feed the hungry at all times, give drink to the thirsting, give ointment to the wounded, clothe the naked, and visit the sick. This is not a media posture. This is the life story of the faithful. This is not announced verbally. This is built upon upright behavior in how we deal with those who believe in Jesus Christ and others. All are our neighbors when we love them. Love is initiative and not reaction. Every day we untiringly build these up with others as bridges. These are the building-blocks of our politics at their deepest. From this well we draw our opinions in truth. Otherwise we are hollow and have become trivial among the trivial! What value is there to be sound in body and to be perishing in the soul? “What benefit is it for a person if he gains the whole world but loses his soul”?! One who does not love is not free from his whims. One who walks in passions is a slave to his passions. One who is not free from his whims cannot help to free anyone. True freedom is inner, existential freedom. Civil freedom is not a virtue and has no value in itself! This is our testimony in Christ, that we strive to liberate the world through the divine love that is active within us! Aside from this, we have no testimony to give!