Michael,

I suppose we will simply have to disagree on the utility and wisdom of authoritarianism. I do not see authoritarianism and love as being mutually exclusive, any more than in the case of a parent who overrides the will of a child caught playing in the street who spanks him. The parent is being authoritarian, he loves his child and is doing what is best for him.

In any case, if I’m correct about how this culture and Western European culture are progressing, like it or not we are in for authoritarian (or possibly even totalitarian) government at some point within the next generation or two. I’m pretty certain that Western style democracy will destroy itself.

C’est la vie.

Scott, my statements are drawn from a personal experience of having a penance given me by my bishop. I didn’t like it, I thought the reasoning behind the penance was incorrect–still do. However, I submitted to the penance without rancor and it is producing good fruit in my life. I was able to do that because of the love my bishop demonstrates on a daily basis for us. A love which includes preaching the Gospel and protecting us against all the wolves out there, even the one’s in sheep’s clothing. My bishop is a kind and generous man, but no one, least of all his priests, would describe him as ‘touchy feely’.

In advance I was told what the standard was and I chose an action that resulted in the penance. I could have chosen to bishop shop. I could have chosen not to submit to the penance and experienced drastic consequences. My free will was never violated and in fact it was strengthened for Christ because of the entire process. That is not authoritarian, not is it democratic. It is loving hierarchical authority in action. The penance became a blessing for me and others. To me it is an experience of mutual submission.

I contrast the actions of my bishop to those of +Nicolai in Alaska. He was authoritarian. He severely wounded the oldest Orthodox diocese on this continent. Authoritarianism always destroys because it is selfish and relies on the use power.

It is a difficult balance to maintain (neither draconian demands nor giving into worldly desires), but one that, IMO, is required by Christianity.

“Perhaps there is a semantic misunderstanding between us, perhaps something more fundamental, but are we really as far apart as you supposed in your post?”

Probably “authoritarian” connotes something to you that I never intended.

“There is a clear distinction in my mind, however, between authoritative, hierarchical rule founded on mutual submission to Christ in love and an authoritarian system founded upon both the desire and ability to supress the free will and conscience of persons who are ruled.”

It really depends on what the authority wishes to supress and why. The motivation is important and that’s why I think authoritarianism, or any other form government, if it is not tied inexorably to the Church is doomed to failure.

All the touchy feely language about mutual submission in love tends to throw me off. Also the stuff about authoritarianism being mutually exclusive to freely choosing good. Under the tsars, for example, a person could freely choose good and freely avoid evil. If they did not, they might be punished severely. But that does not, as Harry suggested, mean that everyone did the good or refrained from the evil out of fear of punishment. That’s a) simply not true and b) a canard that democratically minded people use to justify “freedom”. Otherwise you’re saying that every good action committed or every evil action avoided, whether under the Caesars in early Christianity or under the Byzantines, Russians, etc. was nothing more than the product of the threat of punishment by the state. That’s a bridge to far.

The thing is, none of these democratically minded people would repeal the laws against murder or rape, etc. How about this, is a law against murder or rape only good because it is the product of a democratic process? If it were imposed by an autocrat, would it therefore be fine to murder or rape since the source of the law was not a representative body? Of course not.

Shouldn’t we be free to choose the good or the evil? If I choose not to murder and there are laws against murder on the books, am I a free actor, or merely one who fears the whack on the snout? Are all criminal laws despotic?

Seen in that light the whole line of reasoning is absurd. If my free will chooses to do evil because my conscience is either weak or malformed, should not the authority supress my free will and conscience? That was my point.

I think, once we get down to cases and leave the abstract, we’re probably not that far apart.

It would be great (though uncomfortable) if the bishops would clearly enforce liturgical discipline in line with the canons for such things as abortion and support of abortion, marriage, homosexuality, etc. especially on priests and, in synod, brother bishops. We don’t have that so we founder.

We think we know better than our fathers who went before us. Nonesense, but in lieu of loving guidance, correction and discipline we gravitate to a state not unlike Lord of the Flies or the nihlistic vision of Nietzche. It is the undisciplined anarachy that eventually gives way to the ideology that power and position alone are sufficient to rule. It is the arrogance of power that allows and encourages the ascent to high office of unqualified, unstable people. It is the pride of self-will that allows and encourages all of us to write our own gospel and dispense with canonical discipline as unnecssary and draconian.

Fr. Paul Tarazi in a recent lecture I was priviledged to attend described the parenting style of the Holy Scriptures as correction and discipline until it is obvious that one is unwilling to be obedient and repent. Then one has to face the full consequences of one’s disobedience.

Without the discipline and correction however, we slide even more rapidly into the relativistic individuality of unbridled passions which we name ‘good’ and ‘compassionate’ etc. much like the world. That’s democracy, you are right.

Perhaps there is a semantic misunderstanding between us, perhaps something more fundamental, but are we really as far apart as you supposed in your post?

Michael,

Authoritarianism in the political context is a tendency not a fixed ideology like totalitarianism. Any of the right wing governments in Latin America, for example, in the 1980’s would have been characterized as authoritarian. Putin’s Russia, as a practical matter, could be characterized that way. Most governments throughout history, including practically all Orthodox governments before the twentieth century, would be chracterized as authoritarian. Authoritarian is distinct from totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is a system where, in effect, the state and its leadership are substituted for God. Hitler’s Germany was such a system. Mussolini’s Italy also. Mussolini, for example, issued an order that all pronouns referring to himself were to be capitalized, just like those that reference God. If you google the term “authoritarian/authoritarianism” you will find a wide variety of definitions from absolute rule to that of conservative, non-democratic with a certain room for individual freedom.

“We can only realize the freedom of Christ if we enter voluntarily into a matrix of obedience to Christ, to one another and to spiritual authority. Therefore proper order in accord with our nature is established and maintained. That is the opposite of authoritarianism,”

No it is definitely not. It is absolutely absurd and disingenuous of anyone to posit the notion that modern ideas of political freedom are inherent in Christianity given its history from the very beginning and the witness of the Fathers. The winds of modern politics have caused such people to introduce a dishonest slant into what Christianity really is.

“However, obedience also requires that the elder submit his own will to the good of those whom he guides as well as to Christ and the Church. Authoritarianism does not allow for such mutual, voluntary submission. Harry is correct. Authoritarianism is an ideology founded on power and control not love.”

No, dead wrong again. First of all, I was referring to the political context, not that within the Church. However, even within the church the bishops are not really answerable to the laity. They do answer to their brother bishops. Now, if some council proclaims error as good teaching, the bishops may be convinced by the laity to later declare the first council not to be ecumenical, but that is a far cry from democratic accountability. Or, to put it another way, who determines what is, “the good of those whom he guides?” Certainly not the people themselves.

It is a kneejerk reaction of those whose political ideas have been formed in the Western democratic context to characterize any form of government which is not highly representative of the will of the people as total despotism or totalitarianism.

Michael, seriously, do you not see the utter absurdity of defending a representative democratic system which produces abortion on demand, high rates of divorce, single parenthood, a rabidly licentious culture, etc. against the form of government which has characterized Orthodox civilizations since the time of Constantine? Of declaring that type of government to be fundamentally unchristian?

Christ came to set us free from death and sin and unite Himself to his creation through us. The freedom He gives flows from his voluntary suffering. God did not sacrifice His Son, the Son willing gave Himself up. We can only realize the freedom of Christ if we enter voluntarily into a matrix of obedience to Christ, to one another and to spiritual authority. Therefore proper order in accord with our nature is established and maintained. That is the opposite of authoritarianism.

Obedience allows for, even demands, that we be chastised from time to time by the elders or by the community as a whole or even just natural and logical consequences. However, obedience also requires that the elder submit his own will to the good of those whom he guides as well as to Christ and the Church. Authoritarianism does not allow for such mutual, voluntary submission. Harry is correct. Authoritarianism is an ideology founded on power and control not love.

That is exactly why marriage is the metaphor that St. Paul uses to describe the Church and why we say that a bishop is married to his diocese and a priest to the holy table at his parish.

George,

While I’ve enjoyed a visit now and again to a monastery, I feel those visits are really more in the way of enrichment rather than requirement. I remember decades ago I was all gung-ho for monasteries and after I visited one a few times a priest pulled me aside to explain the reason one of the senior male monks called me ‘poulaki’ more or less was because he thought I was hot. That was more or less that for monasteries and me.

The real monasteries are the residence of the people who live there, setting about their work. They aren’t and never were intended to be ‘for townsfolk’ and ‘for tourists’. Indeed monasteries historically looked upon visitors as a requirement of hospitality, and limit their numbers due to the distraction they can cause.

I’ve stayed out of this debate but if I may offer my 2 cents: the necessity of married life for most endeavors is paramount. Even Sir Francis Bacon in his essays New Atlantis commented on the need for judges and magistrates to be family men. Only these men possessed the necessary rectitude and understanding to administer justice tempered with mercy. Raising children makes one very understanding of the way the world really works.

This is not to say that I’m anti-monastic. Far from it. I believe we need true monastics in America. These can only be cultivated in real monasteries (of which we have now a plethora).

Cross-pollination between parishes and monasteries should occur in the form of pilgrimages. And our bishops should be chosen from the ranks true monastics and spiritually-enhanced married priests who regularly go to monasteries with their families.

Harry,

It is nice when people do the right thing because they choose to regardless of potential negative consequences. However, most people operate on a much more primal level than that. Is not the threat of hell the most compelling threat to “whack one on the snout”?

Without consequences, things deteriorate very quickly. There is only one problem with your attitude: People aren’t perfect. In fact, they are so imperfect that if you rely on them individually to police their own actions they will self-destruct.

“There is a dimension of authoritarianism that leaves no room for morality.”

Maybe some type of authoritarianism, but not what I’m talking about. In my example above, the parents whose children were acting up knew better than to allow them to disrupt a service. They just failed to act. Someone taking charge in a decisive way and demanding that they take up their own responsibilities not only rectifies the immediate situation but serves as an example: Some might resent the shaming they received. But some may see that the man who corrected them was right and they might voluntarily assume their responsibilities in the future.

You’re postulating this mutually exclusive relationship between true moral choice and authoritarianism which does not really exist. The only place it does come to that is in a totalitarian culture where morality is defined by the state and all things are measured by utility to the state. That is not what I’m advocating.

To put it another way, it’s better if people choose to do the right thing. However, creating a context in which social pressures also pressure them to do the right thing is also a good idea. The good will still be good because their motivation is pure regardless of the social pressures. The bad may be moved to do good due to social pressures, but at least good will be done and perhaps they will eventually see the light.

Scott,

Are there maybe German philosophers in your family?

There is a dimension of authoritarianism that leaves no room for morality. The dimension is automaton-like behavior according to fear of punishment: If one fears getting whacked on the snout one does what the the snout-whacker wants– whether the snout-whacker is wrong, right or who cares so long as the snout doesn’t get whacked. That’s why superstitions are popular– there is no real connection with the love motivating it all, just get through it and don’t forget to come to church or some snout-whacker will give you the business. You can see where cultish tendencies start– the temptation by the authority figure to whack the dog and bow before the boss.

Morality is choosing right when nobody is watching. Obedience is doing hoping your snout-whacker of choice isn’t wrong.

Actually, Fr. Johannes, in my experience most married people don’t know much about married life and most parents don’t know much about raising children.

It’s the culture.

And, for my money, authority and authoritarianism are synonomous. Without the will to act in an authoritarian manner, and the objective power to do so, there is no real authority – – or order. A short anecdote:

I recently left GOARCH for ROCOR. It had nothing to do with orthopraxis, the issue was otherwise. Recently I was at the ROCOR church for vigil. It was about 3/4 of the way through the service and there were a number of mothers there with small, but mobile and vocal, children. The children’s volume and activity had gotten well into the disruptive level. A Russian gentleman who chanted with the choir stops in the middle of the service and said in a loud authoritative voice, “I’m not going to continue reading the service if the children are going to be loud and run wild. It’s a disgrace to God. Control your children!”

And they did.

And they will remember it for weeks.

And it will be a while, at least, before it happens again.

This would never have happened in my old church. There is much to be said for authoritarianism. Authoritarianism, if exercised wisely, can instill a certain fear/respect that causes people to do what they know they should do but won’t bring themselves to do. It is absolutely indispensible and things go downhill rapidly without it. The fact that modern Western societies court a disdain for authoritarianism is symptomatic of their inherent moral weakness. We can see it in Western marriage/divorce, the spoiled unbridled habits of young people, and in the spending and saving (bad)habits of Western populations and governments. Absence of authoritarianism = surrender to the passions.

It’s that simple.

But I’m glad you brought up the distinction, Fr. Johannes. For some time I haven’t been able to exactly put my finger on the difference between the atmosphere or aura surrounding traditional society and modern societies. You can feel it if you visit more traditional cultures but it’s hard to put into words exactly what modern Western culture has lost that preserved a sense of order and morality in traditional cultures.

It is authoritarianism.

Children followed their parents, wives followed their husbands, husbands followed an ideal of manhood that has been lost. Obviously none of this was perfect or close to it. But I’m talking about tendencies. There was an expectation backed up by the spectre of coercion that strongly influenced people to fall in line.

I suppose that cannot be regained without revolution, conquest or social collapse and reconstruction. It’s a shame.

All true but the focus here is on priests. I not so sure anymore though how wise it is to have non-married priests in parishes. They can be good men, but rare, very rare, is the unmarried man who has any real sense about married life. They think they know but they really don’t. It’s a lot like having kids. Before you have kids you think you something about being a parent. Only after you have them do you realize you did not have a clue. This affects their understanding of the “paternal” dimension of their office. Many tend to confuse authoritarianism with authority.

Yes, you could say that in some (but certainly not all) cases this is all too true. I want to be careful of overgeneralizing though. There are some single men in the Church who are stable, wise, capable of giving sound counsel but I would say these are the exceptions. Significantly I think, at least as far as I see it, these too are men who are in some kind of community, almost a monastic life although not formally in a monastery. They usually bear some kind of sacrificial responsibility for other people, often family members.

If the celibacy is the qualification of higher office and no real communal responsibilities are evident however, then you have men appointed who have not developed the discipline those responsibilities require or the wisdom they confer. They basically, as Harry says, are ordained bachelors. As bishops, they tend to run roughshod over priests because have no idea (and all too often no care) about the effects their decisions have on clergy families. They tend to be self-absorbed and emotionally immature.

“Presvyteros” is old Greek for “elder”. Functionally you are correct since the Greek word for someone who offers sacrifices is “hierefs”. It seems to me that both could be applied to either a monastic priest or a parish priest since a monastic priest would likely preside over those monks ordained to the diaconate or the unordained.

As far as “celibate vs. married” as not being logical, these are the two permissible possibilities for an individual. I’m using celibate here to mean someone who does not engage in sexual intercourse. However, monastic (if “monastic” implies community) vs. married leaves out hermit monks who do not live in the community of a monastery or a “church of the home” i.e.,a family. It also leaves out celibate laity who live in the world, are part of the Church but, also, not part of a husband-wife-kids family or a monastery.

One thing we are overlooking is the unfortunate case of a man who feels called to the priesthood, enters seminary, approaches graduation looking forward to being a parish priest but simply can’t find a woman willing to marry him. He may have no desire to live in a monastery but that may be his only option if he wishes to be ordained. I personally have met such a priest in the Greek Archdiocese. He was allowed to become a parish priest. I agree though that it is dangerous for the priest and his congregation due to the temptations in the world.

Fr. Hans, if “celibacy” meaning simply, not married, is looked upon as the primary criteria for higher office then we not only have poorly prepared (one could say wholly incompetent) candidates for said office, the micro-community which God created to give life to our larger communities and to be an icon of Himself and His Incarnation, marriage, is denigrated, devalued and ultimately destroyed. Using fake celibacy as a criteria is iconoclastic.