 |
| Father Georges Florovsky. |
Protopresbyter
Georges Vasilievich Florovsky (23 August 1893- 11August1979) was a
prominent 20th century Orthodox Christian priest, theologian, and writer, active in the ecumenical movement. His writing is known for its clear, profound style, covering subjects on nearly every aspect of Church life.
prominent 20th century Orthodox Christian priest, theologian, and writer, active in the ecumenical movement. His writing is known for its clear, profound style, covering subjects on nearly every aspect of Church life.
Historical
failures of the Church do not obscure the absolute and ultimate character of
its challenge, to which it is committed by its very eschatological nature, and
it constantly challenges itself.
Historical
life and the task of the Church are an antinomy, and this antinomy can never
be solved or overcome on a historical level. It is rather a permanent hint to
what is "to come" hereafter. The antinomy is rooted in the practical
alternative which the Church had to face from the very beginning of its
historical pilgrimage. Either the Church was to be constituted as an exclusive
and "totalitarian" society, endeavoring to satisfy all requirements
of the believers, both "temporal" and. "spiritual," paying
no attention to the existing order and leaving nothing to the external world
it would have been an entire separation from the world, an ultimate flight out
of it, and a radical denial of any external authority. Or the Church could
attempt an inclusive Christianization of the world, subduing the whole of life
to Christian rule and authority, to reform and to reorganize secular life on
Christian principles, to build the Christian City. In the history of the Church
we can trace both solutions: a flight to the desert and a construction of the
Christian Empire. The first was practiced not only in monasticism of various
trends, but in many other Christian groups and denominations. The second was
the main line taken by Christians, both in the West and in the East, up to the
rise of militant secularism, but even in our days this solution has not lost
its hold on many people. But on the whole, both proved unsuccessful. One has,
however, to acknowledge the reality of their common problem and the truth of
their common purpose. Christianity is not an individualistic religion and it
is not only concerned for the "salvation of the soul " Christianity
is the Church, i.e. a Community, the New People of God, leading its corporate
Life according to its peculiar principles. And this life cannot be split into
departments, some of which might have been ruled by any other and heterogeneous
principles.
Spiritual leadership of the Church can hardly be reduced to an occasional guidance given to individuals or to groups living under conditions utterly uncongenial to the Church. The legitimacy of these conditions must be questioned first of all. The task of a complete re-creation or re-shaping of the whole fabric of human life cannot or must not be avoided or declined. One cannot serve two Masters and a double allegiance is a poor solution. Here the above-mentioned alternative inevitably comes in-everything else would merely be an open compromise or a reduction of the ultimate and therefore toted claims. Either Christians ought to go out of the world, in which there is another Master besides Christ (whatever name this other Master may bear: Caesar or Mammon or any other) and in which the rule and the goal of life are other than those set out in the Gospel-to go out and to start a separate society. Again Christians have to transform the outer world, to make it the Kingdom of God as well, and introduce the principles of the Gospel into secular legislation.
There is an
inner consistency in both programs. And therefore the separation of the two
ways is inevitable. Christians seem compelled to take different ways. The unity
of the Christian task is broken. An inner schism arises within the Church: an
abnormal separation between the monks (or the elite of the initiated) and the
lay-people (including clergy), which is far more dangerous than the alleged
"clericalization" of the Church. In the last resort, however, it is
only a symptom of the ultimate antinomy. The problem simply has no historical
solution. A true solution would transcend history; it belongs to the "age
to come." In this age, on the historic plane, no constitutional principle
can be given, but only a regulative one: a principle of discrimination, not a
principle of construction.
For again
each of the two programs is self-contradictory. There is an inherent sectarian
temptation in the first: the "catholic" and universal character of
the Christian message and purpose is here at least obscured and often
deliberately denied, the world is simply left out of sight. And all attempts at
the direct Christianization of the world, in the guise of a Christian State or
Empire, have only led to the more or less acute secularization of Christianity
itself.
In our time
nobody would consider it possible for everyone to be converted to a universal
monasticism or a realization of a truly Christian, and universal, State. The
Church remains "in the world," as a heterogeneous body and the
tension is stronger than it has ever been; the ambiguity of the situation is
painfully felt by everyone in the Church. A practical program for the present
age can be deduced only from a restored understanding of the nature and essence
of the Church. And the failure of all Utopian expectations cannot obscure the
Christian hope: the King has come, the Lord Jesus, and His Kingdom is to come.
Reference:
Bible, Church, Tradition: an Eastern
Orthodox view.VI. Georges Florovsky.1972.