Dead Dog Number 1 Orthodox Nationalism

Just about every Orthodox bishop you meet will tell you earnestly that ‘phyletism’ is terribly, terribly wrong. Quite so! It is indeed. But SOME of these very same bishops will be the very first to practice phyletism themselves.

Let's dump the jargon. What is phyletism?

This word was first used at a Synod in Constantinople in 1872 to refer to the setting up of a church on ethnic or nationalistic grounds. The Bulgarians had wanted a church in Constantinople (Istanbul) for their people. Rightly, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in the name of God and the whole Church, condemned this vile practice. The Body of Christ is One, and this means that we are a diverse and inclusive Church, NOT to be thought of as a shrine to national culture and identity at all.

Now comes the dead dog. What an excellent witness the Synod gave in 1872, and what an atrocious response many local churches and some bishops (who should know better) have given since.

For example, in the 19th century there was a real prospect of a single united local Orthodox Church in America including native Americans, Greeks, Russians, Arabs, Serbs and many other ethnic backgrounds in one body under a united episcopate.

Then it all fell apart. Why? Because second and third generation bishops came under pressure from nationalistic tendencies in countries far away to uphold the languages, cultures, traditions and national identities of the Mother Church in the diaspora, in this case, America. They often did this not out of nostalgia (which would be bad enough) but because immigrant communities would be much more likely to send money back to Europe, the Middle East and Russia if they did.

On the other hand, it didn't take much persuading for these bishops to convince Americans of (say) Greek background that they really needed a Greek bishop rather than, (say) a Serbian or Arab bishop. This ecclesiastical racism (for that is what it is) has been a curse in Orthodoxy ever since.

All over the world, this pattern has been repeated. Fine sentiments about the unity of the Church have always been forthcoming from church leaders, but this has frequently been only for show. What many (but not all) bishops have done is to perpetuate widening ethnic divisions between their jurisdictions and strangle the development of genuinely diverse local churches in those new lands into which Orthodox Christianity has been received.

A particularly reprehensible example of this in recent times has been the reaction of the churches in Russia, Serbia and Romania to the agreement in Chambesy in June 2009 (which they all signed up to!). Having agreed to work together towards local church unity in the diaspora they then made it crystal clear that they had every right to minister to their people wherever they might be found across the globe, thus undermining the very objectives of Chambesy itself, which was to render jurisdictional claims secondary to the proclamation of the gospel and the building up of ONE church in each place.

One bishop, one city anybody?
Grief! The stench of dead canines here is overpowering!