When you bring an eschatological dimension into the world, you create a morality and a behavior which has social repercussions. You aren’t supposed to make a special effort to emulate the activities of secular societies, to copy their methods and to familiarize yourself with their activities in order to compete with them. Instead of getting itself involved in philanthropic projects, with all the specifications of a successful philanthropic organization or a Ministry of Welfare, the ancient Church simply had almsgiving. You cannot turn love into an institution (if we were to take love as an example). This of course does not mean that you remain inactive. When someone is hungry, you give him food. The more that you carry the eschatological identity inside you, the more you will love him and help him, even sacrificing yourself. I am trying to say that there are ways that the Church can better perform its duty in such areas, without spending itself in social activities, without becoming inactive, but rather in a personal manner, and not as an institution. I would say the same thing applies to missionary work and to all related topics. Things evolved more naturally in the ancient Church. Nowadays, everything is “organized”. What we call “organization of the Church” is based on secular standards. We may not be inactive, but we certainly haven’t avoided secularization, because that is what will happen, when you emulate secular forms. I happened to read a newspaper article, whose commentary-response by a professor Gousides I found very interesting. He labeled the article “the exodus”, while the reference was to the clergy. Apparently, everyone seeks an exit in order to become more active, hence the clergy should do the same. But the nature of the Church is entirely different, and I believe that the people need that “otherness”, that eschatological difference. Proof of this, is that whenever the Church attempted to develop secular activities, even though She may have momentarily noted success, it eventually dwindled away. We (of the previous generation at least) had actually lived through such attempts years ago, where bishops strived to build boarding homes, foundations, etc. All of these were quite nice of course – they were a testimony of the Church. But then along came the welfare state and improved them or even took over such institutions. So, what do the people expect? How was this act of the Church evaluated? Very little. People go to Church to worship, to cross themselves, to light a candle, and not because the Church has, say, a retirement home for the aged. You may very well ask: can’t the Church have such a retirement home? Of course it can. But what I am trying to say is, that the Church must not make this a part of Her identity, or Her program. Naturally every diocese has its elderly, and it will take care of them. So will the bishopric. What I am referring to, is the spirit, the stance, the placing.
Anyway, the Church seems to be bipolar at this point. On the one hand, it has to attend to its mission, since it is dispersed throughout the world. On the other hand though, in contrast to the Jews (and even the Westerners, I would say), the Church also has the experience of an eschatological congregation, on account of the Resurrection of Christ and the Pentecost. In other words, the Church has a foretaste in the present of that which is to be expected in the future. The Church is linked to this eschatological union, which has not yet been fully realized and is still anticipated, hence She exists between these two situations. She exists within History, She is dispersed, She makes missionary attempts, but that is not the entire issue. She simultaneously tastes and experiences the eschatological congregation – a situation that does not contain missionary work or dispersal. That is to say, while the missionary experience and the dispersion are elements of the Church, they do not constitute Her identity. The Church that does not have this experience of an eschatological congregation has lost its identity. Its identity is linked to that very foretasting of the eschatological union of God’s people.
Anyway, judging from all the above, it appears that the Church is going through an “identity crisis”, as it is fashionable to say nowadays in Sociology. It is a fact that people also go through an identity crisis, just like institutions do. And if you were to pose the question: “where is the identity of the Church? – where does each one of us place it?” then, not only in theory, but also in practice, I am afraid you will observe a vast difference of opinions. The temptation of History is immense. Eschatology seems like a vaporous thing, which cannot be grasped. But we do not realize –as a Church – that people do not want us like that. I believe that Man needs this vaporous and elusive and future element; he cannot find it in any other institution of society, only in the Church. And that is why he will continue to go to Church, regardless of how many activities the priest or the bishop may have to show for themselves, because that is where a person wants to drop anchor – in that elusive future. And woe betide, if the Church deprives him of it. Fortunately, we Orthodox have a form of worship that is permeated with the eschatological dimension, the eschatological character. That is what makes it so appealing. That is what attracts the people, otherwise we would have no-one in the Church, just as it is beginning to occur in England nowadays, where those gigantic churches are being shut down and sold. They lack people. Because the social work that the churches believed was of greater importance, has been supplanted by other institutions; it has been substituted. And the clergyman does not know what else to do, or to give. The more we displace the eschatological element, the more that it dwindles within the Church, the more we are at risk of losing the true identity of the Church.
No comments:
Post a Comment