The Documents of the Holy and Great Council on Marriage and Fasting

A Critical Response

Paul Meyendorff,
The Ecumenical Review 72 (3), July 2020, p. 470- 475

Paul Meyendorff was the Father Alexander Schmemann Professor of Liturgical Theology at St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary from 1987 to 2016, and is a member of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches .

Abstract

This article offers a critical response to the documents on marriage and on fasting of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, which took place in Crete in 2016. It suggests greater attention be given to the concept of oikonomia in contemporary Orthodoxy, both in the context of the issues raised in these two documents and with respect to other contentious issues. In contemporary Orthodoxy, the exercise of oikonomia is understood in different ways. One approach is the legalistic understanding of the term that is employed in the council documents; the second and more traditional approach is to understand oikonomia as discernment of what is true and authentic, even outside the canonical limits of Orthodoxy. The article asks whether such a perspective could characterize the church’s approach to other complex pastoral issues, such as those related to marriage and fasting.

Keywords

Holy and Great Council, Orthodox church, marriage, fasting, oikonomia I am honoured to have received this invitation to address this 8th International Conference of Orthodox Theology, which occurs at such a critical time in a tumultuous world that needs our united Orthodox witness more than ever (1). With all of you, I celeΒ­brate the fact that the Great and Holy Council did, despite so many obstacles, finally take place, despite the absence of several local churches. At the same time, as one comΒ­ing from the so-called diaspora, I lament the fact that the council was unable to resolve the persistent canonical problem that afflicts us. For nearly a century now, we have been living with the scandal of multiple jurisdictions in one place, and the winds of ethno- phyletism, the conflation between church and nation, do not seem to be abating. I pray, therefore, that the now-revived pan-Orthodox conciliar process will continue and will be able to resolve these difficult issues.

My task here, however, is to focus on the contemporary liturgical and pastoral questions that the council did address, namely, the texts on marriage and fasting.

The Sacrament of Marriage and Its Impediments

The first section of the statement on marriage of the council in Crete attempts a posiΒ­tive formulation of marriage as a sacrament (2), grounded in the creation of Adam and Eve in paradise before the fall, then sanctified by Christ at his first miracle in Cana. The text then continues by citing numerous New Testament texts supporting the sanctity of marriage, before shifting to a defensive mode and reacting to current societal trends that challenge traditional conceptions of marriage.

Biblical scholars might argue with the statement that marriage is β€œthe oldest institution of divine law,” as the law comes only after the fall, and Orthodox generally avoid using this kind of juridical language. Certainly, marriage is a fundamental human reality (that is the implication of the Genesis creation account), but it is fully revealed and realized only in the context of the church. However, since marriage is grounded in creation, can it not also be experienced, even if only partially, by all humankind? After all, it did exist prior to the incarnation, and Christ fulfilled and perfected something that was already a reality. The same can also be said of baptism and the eucharist, where ordinary human activities are transfigured and become means of salvation and communion. Thus, married persons entering the church through baptism or chrismation have always been received in their married state, with their marriage accepted as sacramental through their incorporation into the church. It matters not whether they were formerly non-Christian or Christian (3). Is it possible to say that they were not married before? It is better to say that their marriage is fulfilled and transfigured when they become Christian.

The text acknowledges that religious and civil law coincide to a certain extent. The church’s canonical tradition did absorb elements of Roman (and Byzantine) civil law, and the marriage rite similarly incorporated numerous elements from civil society β€” but church and society were never identical. For example, under Roman civil law, rules for divorce were far more lenient than in the church; but the church did not object to impeΒ­rial legislation and simply applied its own rules to its own members. Clearly, the interests of church and state do not coincide in every respect. As an example, the church only tolerates second and third and forbids fourth marriages, while the state imposes no such discipline out of its interest for the social and financial stability of its citizens.

This bifurcation between church and state is particularly relevant today with respect to the current debates in Western society about same-sex marriage. In recent years, many Western countries have legalized such unions, basing their decisions on many factors with which the church is not always comfortable: individual human rights, new and difΒ­ferent understandings of gender identity, and other, more pragmatic factors, including financial stability and civil benefits.

These contemporary developments certainly pose challenges to the church, and simΒ­plistic appeals to ancient canons are no longer sufficient. In recent years, questions of gender and sexuality have caused divisions both within and between Christian commuΒ­nions, and the Orthodox are not immune, though they are barely beginning to address these issues. Clearly, many challenges remain, particularly in the area of human anthropology. We Orthodox certainly need to become aware of developments in physical and human sciences. Without such an awareness, we will not be able to address the quesΒ­tions being posed by modern society. Unfortunately, the council documents show little openness to this. Far better, in this regard, is the recent statement addressed to young people on β€œLove β€” Sexuality β€” Marriage” by the bishops of the Orthodox Church in Germany (4).

From the perspective of Orthodox who live as minorities in the West, however, it is the final section, entitled β€œImpediments to Marriage,” that raises the most difficulties. This section restates many of the ancient canons dealing with marriage discipline, and it is the paragraph on mixed marriage, quoting Canon 72 of the Quinisext, that is most problematic. This canon, which dates from the late 7th century, was issued at a time when Orthodox Christians were an overwhelming majority in the Empire, and it was thus relatively easy to enforce.

The situation today is vastly different. In many parts of the world, Orthodox are but a tiny minority, with the result that more than 80 percent of Orthodox marry non- Orthodox. In reading the council document, one would conclude that this reflects a forΒ­bidden practice, and that mixed marriages are tolerated only out of oikonomia . Yet these mixed marriages have resulted in a large influx of new members into the Orthodox Church, particularly in those churches that are more acclimated to the local cultures. In the United States, for example, converts constitute close to 50 percent of the faithful in the Antiochian Archdiocese and the Orthodox Church in America. In those jurisdicΒ­tions that identify themselves more strongly with particular ethnic groups, the number of converts is smaller, but not insignificant. Yet the percentage of mixed marriages in these more ethnic churches is no less, and the result is that the Orthodox marriage partΒ­ners more often than not abandon the church of their ancestors, either to join another Christian body, or to leave the church altogether.

In short, mixed marriages can be, and often are, missionary opportunities. The church, rather than simply condemning them, should seize the opportunity to welcome potenΒ­tial new members, but it ought to do so gently, without any coercion, by providing a space where both marriage partners can grow spiritually. Any form of coercion, such as requiring the non-Orthodox partner to convert, should be rejected as causing spiritual harm to both spouses.

And this is a challenge not just in places where Orthodox are in the minority. In many traditionally Orthodox countries, in fact only a small percentage practise the faith, even if they formally identify themselves as Orthodox, having been baptized as infants. Is not the marriage of a practising Orthodox with a lapsed or non- practising one the functional equivalent of a mixed marriage? But, here again, such marriages create catechetical and missionary opportunities that should not be missed.

An even more difficult situation arises in the case of marriages between Orthodox and non-Christians, which our document accurately states are categorically forbidden in the canonical tradition, and which therefore can receive no church blessing at all. Yet, such marriages are increasingly common and result in the Orthodox spouse’s simΒ­ply being excommunicated and leaving the church. Surely, more reflection on this is needed. If we Orthodox argue that the roots of marriage are found in God’s intention from the very beginning of creation, then all humanity, made in God’s image, can share in its grace, even if not fully. Could not some blessing - certainly not a full service of crowning, but perhaps based on the Genesis narrative β€” be developed to cover such instances? Obviously, the hope would be that the spouses will ultimately come to share one faith, but without any form of pressure or coercion. The spiritual benefits of such a pastoral approach would extend to both the Orthodox and non-Orthodox spouse. β€œFor,” as St Paul says in a slightly different context, β€œthe unbelieving husband is conseΒ­crated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband” (1 Cor. 7:14).

The Importance of Fasting and Its Observance Today

Like the text on marriage, this document begins with an extensive and positive stateΒ­ment on fasting based on scriptural and patristic sources (5). Notably, the statement situΒ­ates fasting in a broader, ecclesial context and presents it as integrally connected with prayer and merciful deeds. And it rightly acknowledges the need for flexibility in adjustΒ­ing fasting rules to local circumstances and pastoral necessity. In these ways, the docuΒ­ment simply restates current practice and offers little that is new, certainly not the more fundamental changes in fasting regulations that some were expecting.

Where I would offer some critique of this document is its somewhat legalistic tone. For the most part, it presumes that the church’s fasting rules are fixed and set in stone, though it does acknowledge that fasting seasons and rules have evolved. In fact, howΒ­ever, few councils, particularly ecumenical councils, have addressed fasting specifically, and most fasting regulations are to be found in the Typikon, which does not have the status of ecumenical canons and was never promulgated by an ecumenical council. Historically, it was only the Church of Russia which, from the 16th century onward, began to canonically legislate liturgical, and also fasting, practices.

A further critique I would offer concerns the use of the term oikonomia in both docuΒ­ments. The word is used repeatedly in both texts in a legalistic way, as the right of the church, primarily through its bishops, to waive a canon or a rule. It is used to mean leniency, as opposed to strictness ( akribeia). But this use of the word is modern and differs from its classical use as meaning β€œhousehold management,” as for example in 1 Corinthians 4:1. Rather than being legalistic, the term implies pastoral discernment, the proper exercise of apostolic and episcopal leadership. Thus, in a given situation, the exercise of oikonomia can be either lenient or strict - both reflect oikonomia .

The concept of oikonomia in contemporary Orthodoxy certainly needs greater reflecΒ­tion, both in the context of the issues raised in these two documents and with respect to other contentious issues, such as the mode of receiving converts, where the issue arises in its most dramatic form. Ever since the 4th century, baptized converts entering the church have generally not been rebaptized but have been received either by chrismaΒ­tion or confession β€” and this has been understood and explained as an exercise of oikonomia . In contemporary Orthodoxy, however, this is interpreted in different ways. There are some who would say, based on a Cyprianic ecclesiology such as that espoused by St Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, that baptism outside the canonical limits of the Orthodox Church is null and void; but the bishop can, by oikonomia, waive the canonical rule that converts be baptized. This reflects the legalistic understanding of the term, and this is how the term is employed in the council documents. The second and more traditional approach is to understand oikonomia as discernment of what is true and authentic, even outside the canonical limits of Orthodoxy. According to this approach, converts are not (re)baptized, because their previous baptism is seen to be real and authentic, and thus of the church - this is the fundamental approach taken by St Basil the Great and much of the patristic tradition. This latter approach reflects a more open view of other Christian bodies, and it reflects the general practice of the Slavic churches to this day (6).

Cannot such a perspective also characterize the church’s approach to other complex pastoral issues, such as those related to marriage and fasting? Orthodoxy too often tends to react with fear to developments in the world, whether in global Christianity or civil society. When it does so, it tends to turn inward, to reject the other, to hide behind appeals to ancient canons - rather than, in the words of Fr Georges Florovsky, β€œputting on the mind of the Fathers” (7) by squarely engaging in a fruitful dialogue with the conΒ­temporary world. The Great and Holy Council in Crete was a beginning, but many challenges remain.

Notes

(1) This is an edited version of a paper given at the 8th International Conference of Orthodox Theology, held in Thessaloniki, 21-25 May 2018, on the theme β€œThe Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church: Orthodox Theology in the 21st Century.”

(2) β€œThe Sacrament of Marriage and its Impediments,” Official Documents of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, https://www.h 0 lyc 0 uncil. 0 rg/-/marriage.

(3) The practice in some local Orthodox churches to remarry converts is highly problematic.

(4) Orthodox Bishops Conference in Germany, β€œA Letter from the Bishops of the Orthodox Church in Germany to Young People concerning Love - Sexuality - Marriage,” 12 December 2017, http:^ww.obkd.de/ Texte/Brief %200BKD%20an%20die%20Jugend-en.pdf.

(5) β€œThe Importance of Fasting and Its Observance Today,” Official Documents of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, https://www.h 0 lyc 0 uncil. 0 rg/-/fasting.

(6) See my article β€œThe Liturgical Reforms of Peter Moghila, A New Look,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 29 (1985), 101-14.

(7) Georges Florovsky, β€œSt. Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers,” in Bible, Church, Tradition: Collected Works 1 (Belmont, Mass.: Nordland, 1972), 113.