The Concept of Free Orthodoxy

Igor Manannikov, PhD in Philosophy,

Priest, Apostolic Orthodox Church, Berlin, Germany

My goal is to attempt to find a perspective on the Orthodox Tradition that allows us to perceive, and perhaps to realize in practice, the liberating nature of the Orthodox faith and life.

I realize that such a general exposition is vulnerable to criticism, especially in details, but otherwise we would drown in these details and fail to see the broader picture, which I will attempt to portray.

1. Usually, “Orthodoxy” is named as one of the Christian confessions, alongside Protestantism and Catholicism.

However, the very name of the Church — “Orthodoxy” — is a term of religious studies (though ancient), which the Holy Fathers began to use in order to distinguish the true Church from heretical gatherings. “Orthodoxy” is an empty term: it only acquires meaning if opposite concepts exist, such as unorthodox, heretical. It is a descriptive term that says little about the essence itself. It is more accurate to say that Orthodoxy is a polemical term, and it makes sense only in polemics. In its very essence, Orthodoxy is the Church itself.

2. That is, what we call “Orthodoxy” is simply Christianity in which Byzantine aesthetics and Byzantine canon law currently dominate. Dogmatic theologians attempt to convince us that Orthodoxy is a certain kind of dogmatics, but history shows that within Orthodoxy different theological theories have coexisted in the past and still coexist today. Moreover, in historical retrospect, we see that some theories that were Orthodox in the 2nd century became considered heretical in the 4th century (for example, the subordinationism of apologists like Tertullian and Justin Martyr, or the chiliasm of Irenaeus).

In other words, we see that Christian thought develops. However, we do not see this development in the aesthetic and canonical spheres. Byzantine aesthetics and canon law remain largely unchanged, which, in my opinion, makes them a certain “invariant” of Orthodoxy. If today we ask an ordinary person what Orthodoxy is, he will name only those things that can be attributed to aesthetics or canon law. This fact is confirmed by the failed experiments with the Western Rite in Orthodoxy and the failed dialogue of Orthodoxy with Anglicans and Old Catholics. Dogmatics may be the same, but a beardless priest, a non-Byzantine interior of a church, and especially a married bishop prevent parishioners from identifying such a parish as Orthodox.

Thus, I define Orthodoxy as Christianity with a hypertrophied Byzantine-aesthetic and canonical element. Accordingly, the churches that preserve such an element from change I call “Canonical Orthodoxy.” Clearly, this is a working definition and needs further refinement.

3. The term “Free Orthodoxy” acquires a clear meaning in opposition to Canonical Orthodoxy.

Free Orthodoxy sanctions development in the sphere of canon law and aesthetics, which in Canonical Orthodoxy remain unchanged.

4. Can Free Orthodoxy be called an Orthodox Reformation? No. I do not call for reforming, abolishing, or authoritatively introducing new provisions, canons, or styles. I call for treating these things freely and variably, since such an approach is genuinely traditional.

5. In my view, the concept of “Tradition” includes not only the transmission of past experience and content (by “content” is meant the substance of Sacred Tradition), but also its understanding and acceptance for use by contemporaries. That is, the main active subject in the transmission of Tradition is the contemporary who inherits it, which in turn means he begins to apply it in his own conditions of life, recognizing its value. Therefore, the main moment of accepting Tradition is its critique (1).

A mechanical, uncritical repetition of Tradition is not its understanding and acceptance, but only an imitation, more similar to a cargo cult than to its genuine living.

As an example: suppose we inherit from our grandmother a large wardrobe full of clothes. We sort through it and put aside some outdated things for disposal, while deciding to wear others. But even then we sort — some things for summer, others for winter. This is precisely the critical assimilation of Tradition. For it is critique that makes things real for us; critique relates the things we encounter to our personal reality and history, making them part of our experience. Canonical Orthodoxy, however, reverently puts on everything at once, transferring them into a symbolic plane. In fact, selection occurs here too, but secretly and imperceptibly, as if with shame.

6. In the history of the Church, we find two approaches to Christian Tradition: the Reformation and the Second Vatican Council.

The Reformation cut off most of the traditional content, leaving the critical subject and only one part of Sacred Tradition — the formalized part, Scripture.

The Second Vatican Council reduced the content of Tradition, but introduced these changes authoritatively and centrally. In my opinion, Free Orthodoxy avoids these extremes. It preserves the traditional content but offers believers or communities the freedom to decide for themselves whether to use it for their spiritual needs or not, without external compulsion. Or to create something new.

7. The aesthetic component of Orthodoxy may be left to those talented Orthodox artists, musicians, and liturgists who have a creative calling for it. The results of their creativity will be evaluated by the people through their popularity and duration of use. Personally, I see no alternatives to the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for now. But I also see no obstacles to writing other liturgical forms and introducing them locally.

Now let us turn to the canons.

8. Church canons as a legal system are misunderstood in Canonical Orthodoxy. They are understood on the model of Roman law — as legislative norms. In reality, however, they correspond more closely to Anglo-Saxon precedent law. The source of law here is precedent — a judicial consideration of a specific issue. The decision, that is, the canon, becomes in that case an example of a solution in a specific situation, rather than an abstract norm for further standard guidance.

We all know amusing American laws, such as: in Missouri it is forbidden to give beer to an elephant, or in Michigan it is forbidden to throw octopuses at people, or in Massachusetts bullets cannot be used as currency. These are laws based on precedent. It turns out that there were situations in US history when these cases caused disputes and were tied to real life problems. But then the situation changed and these laws died out naturally. For example, throwing octopuses was a fad among hockey fans at one time. Later the fad passed and the law is no longer relevant.

The same applies to church canons. They resolved issues in the church era when they were written. For this, local councils were convened every two years (this canon, incidentally, is not observed now) to resolve current problems with current canons. For example, Canon 83 of the Council in Trullo forbids communing the dead. This means someone at that time came up with such an idea. But today this is irrelevant. There are many such canons, and all this only means that canons in Orthodoxy are precedents, not normative acts. This means that a canon can be useful as guidance, or useless, depending on the real situation. Therefore, Orthodox canon law does not need reform. It needs the common sense of priests and laypeople who in each concrete situation can discern the applicability of a canon. Or, in a difficult case, they can convene a local council to resolve the problem.

On Power

9. Canons also form the power structure of Orthodoxy. The existing hierarchical system, including the system of patriarchates and autocephalies, is a transposition of the imperial Byzantine structure of power into the Church. The Church adopted methods of imperial organization and expansion (since expansion is built into the structure of empire by default) and mistakenly took colonialism for mission. Church colonialism, together with imperial colonialism, entered the Church and became a customary matter. The confederation of free churches that existed in the 3rd century, after the recognition of the Church by the state, was transformed into something resembling church provinces and municipalities (2).

The system of power completely repeated the secular system, thereby violating the direct command of Christ: “But Jesus called them to him and said, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave” (Mt. 20:25–27).

The false idea of a church empire was maximally realized in Catholicism, but it also secretly exists in Orthodoxy in the form of patriarchates and the figure of the patriarch. Not to mention the dispute between patriarchates for primacy, which in itself contradicts the spirit of Christianity. Instead of one pope, Canonical Orthodoxy introduces a “collective pope” — the “ecumenical council.” Why are we constantly seeking a visible authority? Where does this desire to have power above us come from? This is reminiscent of the story in 1 Samuel 8, when Israel asked Samuel for a king so that they might be like other nations. Samuel resisted, saying: you already have a king — God. You need no other.

In the modern globalized world, in my opinion, the system of patriarchates has lost its relevance. How did patriarchates appear? It was a simple scaling up of the diocese. Dioceses united under the heads of metropolises, and they under a patriarch.

But the automatic scalability of the church community from a home group to a many-thousand metropolis is unjustified. It copies the structure of the army and other worldly organizations, and it cannot be a model for the Church. In such an impersonal organization, personal relations and love disappear.

The permissible and desirable model of the church community is the family. It is no accident that our main prayer begins with “Our Father,” and all our theology is conducted in the terms of family. Meanwhile, it is inconceivable to have a many-thousand-member family, where because of sheer numbers the objectification of members and the perception of authority as violence are inevitable. Therefore, power relations (if they are applicable at all) can exist only in a small community, where the authority of a bishop will not be perceived as objectified violence but as paternal admonition.

10. Accordingly, the role of the bishop is important. The episcopal system of organization seems to me correct and preferable. However, the bishop is not an administrative post like a municipal official, but spiritual pastoral care. Since “the shepherd knows his sheep” (Jn. 10:14), this means that a community cannot be so large that the shepherd loses real ties with his flock. Therefore, a bishop can only be in a small community. Often in modern practice the role of bishop is played by parish rectors. Only the fear of losing power control in the modern church hierarchy prevents such rectors from being made bishops. However, there is a pressing need for this.

There must be many bishops. Every small town should have its own bishop, and in metropolises every district should have its own bishop. Besides pastoral benefits, this will contribute to the dispersion of power and the eradication of the struggle for authority and control from the Church. In addition, the multiplicity of bishoprics will contribute to mission.

The concept of a “diocese” must be separated from its territorial dimension, or rather, it must complement its territorial dimension with others. Sole territorial division of dioceses is insufficient in a globalized world. Additional parameters are needed, such as language, nationality, social strata, and others. It is entirely normal that in one city there may be several bishops covering different target groups. For example, today any large European city contains different social strata, often not intersecting with one another. For instance, a city may have several national diasporas with different languages. And it will be natural that each group has its own bishop, speaking its language and understanding the problems and life of his flock. This is precisely how the apostleship of languages manifests itself: the Apostles preached to languages, that is, to peoples with a certain culture. Their goal was the person, not the territory that could be declared Christian.

If in apostolic times territory coincided with the language and people living on it, now territory is simply a geographical point that should no longer have ecclesial significance. It has already become normal that in Berlin there is a Syrian community with a Syrian bishop, and in the neighboring district a Serbian bishop pastors his Serbian community in the Serbian language. In the future this layering of bishoprics will only increase. And the sooner we understand this, the better.

11. Thus, Free Orthodoxy is a natural and legitimate way out of the crisis that tears Canonical Orthodoxy apart. Free Orthodoxy is not a utopia; it has already been realized for many years in so-called “alternative Orthodoxy.” It is discredited in every way by Canonical Orthodoxy, since it challenges its monopoly on Orthodoxy. Free Orthodoxy is not a specific church organization; it is an approach to understanding the Church as a liberating spiritual reality, not an enslaving Christian ideology. It is not necessarily connected with liberal theology and practice. Communities may well choose a very strict and ascetic way of life and strict regulation of life. Freedom presupposes a free choice of Christian way of life, which can have different forms of expression within the bounds of the main commandment of love.

Berlin, 03 October 2022

(1)According to Heidegger, the destruction of tradition is a condition for its renewal. § 6 of Being and Time is devoted to this issue.)
(2)Prof. Troitsky demonstrated well this dynamic of the formation and enlargement of autocephalies. Prof. S. Troitsky, On Church Autocephaly, Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, No. 07, July 1948, pp. 33–54.)