Saturday, August 10, 2019

The Church in the world.
Father Georges Florovsky.




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.

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.