Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, can be regarded as the “pope,” or at least the symbol of unity, of Orthodox Christianity. The denomination’s 300 million or so adherents make it the second-largest body of Christians in the world, after Roman Catholicism. The 67-year-old Bartholomew also represents one of Christianity’s most ancient branches as the latest in a line of 270 archbishops of his city — modern Istanbul — that traces itself back to the apostle St. Andrew, brother of St. Peter, in a part of the world where the Christian faith has existed since New Testament times.
In December 2006, Bartholomew, patriarch since 1991, was thrust under the world-wide media spotlight when he celebrated the Orthodox Divine Liturgy with Pope Benedict XVI. The two met in the tiny Church of St. George in the equally tiny patriarchal compound in Istanbul, all that remains of an Eastern Christian civilization on the Bosporus so glistening and powerful that for more than 1,500 years Constantinople called itself the “new Rome.”
Now Bartholomew has a forthcoming book, in English, “Encountering the Mystery: Perennial Values of the Orthodox Church” (Random House). It purports to be a primer to Orthodoxy, with short chapters on ritual, theology, icons and so forth. What it really is, perhaps inadvertently, is a telling glimpse into the mindset of a church that, venerable and spiritually appealing though it may be, is in a state of crisis. And the book reveals the jarringly secular-sounding ideological positions its leader seemingly feels compelled to take in order to cultivate the sympathy of a Western European political order that is at best indifferent to Christianity.
I posted the following comment on Lutheran pastor Gregory Alms’s [url=http://incarnatusest.blogspot.com]weblog[/url] where Ms. Allen’s article was also linked. Because I suspect that there are few who read and comment here who also read Pr Alms’s weblog, I am taking the liberty of re-posting my comment here.
Ms. Allen’s article does not start out well, when says that the Patriarch of Constantinople [i]can be regarded as the “pope,” or at least the symbol of unity, of Orthodox Christianity[/i]. The role of the Patriarch within Orthodoxy has almost nothing in common with that of the Pope within Roman Catholicism, and even her hasty qualification (“or at least the symbol of unity”) is not true either. Her failure to characterize the Patriarch’s role within Orthodoxy accurately does not bode well for the credibility of the rest of her article.
Her picture of the dwindling of Orthodoxy within Turkey is, sadly, quite accurate. But while it is true that the flock of the Church of Constantinople within Turkey itself is quite tiny, what she leaves out is the fact that the Patriarch has an extensive flock outside of Turkey. The Patriarch has jurisdiction over Greek-speaking or Greek-ancestry Orthodox Christians in many parts of the world, including the large and thriving Greek Orthodox communities in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Certainly in financial terms the survival of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is in no doubt.
Having painted a dire picture of the Patriarch’s domestic situation, Ms. Allen seems to feel that if the Patriarch speaks in public or writes a book, he must never discuss any matter other than the (supposedly) existential crisis within his own Church. Certainly he must never discuss politics, international relations, or environmental issues. Apparently being the head of a venerable and historically important Christian Church means that one is disqualified from having political or social views (or at least disqualified from discussing those views in public).
Forgive me for suspecting that Patriarch Bartholomew’s real sin is not the supposed neglect of his own Church’s crisis, but holding political views that Ms. Allen does not agree with. She characterizes his views as [i]eco-friendly platitudes … adorned with a bit of theological window-dressing[/i]. Is Ms. Allen familiar enough with Orthodox Christian theology to distinguish between well-reasoned theological grounding for social and political thought on the one hand, and “theological window-dressing” on the other? Perhaps she is, but she does not deal with the substance of the Patriarch’s book in enough depth for us to tell.
If the Patriarch’s politics agreed with those of the editorial board of the [i]Wall Street Journal[/i], perhaps Ms. Allen would not have criticized him so.
I’m not a “booster” of the Patriarch by any means. When it comes to politics I am quite conservative and there is a good chance that if I read his book I would disagree with a lot of it. And there is a lot of what the Church of Constantinople has done, and is doing, within the Orthodox Church that I don’t like. But Ms. Allen’s article is simply shallow and unfair.
Christ beat me to it.
No Orthodox Christian would ever sit still for the idea that the Patriarch of Constantinople can be regarded as the “pope”. There is a huge difference between “pope” (not to say popes are good or bad things) and the Patriarch of C’nople being a symbol of unity. Westerners just do not get it. (Unless of course they are Orthodox.) Something that Orthodox scholars have been pointing out for years, er, I mean centuries.
I very nearly stopped reading after the first sentence. I probably should have. As is so often true of those outside Orthodoxy she places way too much importance in the See of Constantinople.
I am not going to respond to her points on the EP’s book since I have not read it and am therefor not in a position to express an informed opinion. I will however note that Bartholomew is controversial within Orthodoxy and is seen as a bit liberal (a relative term in Orthodoxy) by more than a few of his fellow hierarchs. And it must be said that outside of the Middle East where her points on Christian decline and persecution are well made, that Orthodoxy is in fact seeing quite a comeback from its near death status under the militant atheists. In many parts of Eastern Europe monasticism (one of the key indicators of the health of the church) is thriving. With the addition of historically Orthodox countries to the EU we are seeing a trend that could result in Orthodoxy becoming the dominant Christian faith in Europe over time if the Roman Catholic Church does not manage to reverse its radical decline in Western Europe.
Most of the other problems mentioned by her including the sometimes petty jurisdictionalism, have been with Orthodoxy for a thousand years. Lay people tend to ignore the infighting among bishops unless it touches on the Faith.
As for Constantinople disappearing as a see thats ridiculous. The question of what will happen is being actively discussed already in many circles and there are a number of possible solutions that are being floated. If Turkey continues its de facto persecution of the church then most likely the Patriarchate will go into exile after Bart’s repose. There is ample historical precedent for such a response.
Constantinople is very close to relatively liberal elements in the PECUSA, as witnesses this story from the Episcopal New Yorker:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Mk9STZwksvMJ:eny.dioceseny.org/ENY%20PDFS/706/0706_6.pdf+sisk+constantinople+bishop&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Churchman,
Like I said the EP is seen in many Orthodox circles as a bit liberal. However it would be a mistake to read too much into this. Bart is no where even remotely on the same page theologically as TEC.
Also for the record no Orthodox jurisdiction recognizes Anglican orders. The Romanians flirted with the idea back in the 20’s but they were only dealing with the High Church Anglo-Catholic crowd at the time. The few hierarchs who came out in favor of it repudiated the idea once they realized that Anglicans were really Protestants (and liberal ones at that). Any Orthodox bishop who suggested such a thing today would be laughed off his throne.
This article at least should make us over here in Europe aware of how little our governments are holding Turkey to task over its treatment of its Christians. This should clearly be necessary before Turkey is admitted to the EU; but where the rights of Christians are raised by the EU, they are mentioned under the heading of human rights, almost as if Europe is too ashamed to speak up directly for Christians.
Thanks to comments for some idea of what will happen to the Ecumenical Patriarchy after Bartholomew — it will go into exile. Europe has a great problem because so many of its Christians are only nominally so. In my travels I have met very few whose Christianity is more than skin deep, if that much.
I believe that the indigenous Middle Eastern churches would be the best vehicle for reviving and spreading Christianity in this part of the world. Protestant evangelicals are viewed, with some truth, as bringing a wholly Western religion not compatible with the culture they are trying to convert.