Ecclesial Oikonomia
From ancient times the Church has possessed a wise and salvific application of akribeia and oikonomia, and this has always been done—following the example of the Holy Fathers—for pastoral reasons: for the salvation of human beings and for the preservation of the unity of the Body of the Church, or else for the healing of the wounds of schism and division in the God-man’s Body of Christ.
The word akribeia (ἀκρίβεια) means precision (and not “severity”), while the word oikonomia (οἰκονομία) literally means stewardship, household ordering, and household governance. In the Church it derives from and is applied in accordance with the divine oikonomia (the economy, the dispensation) of salvation accomplished in Christ. It is the economy of salvation in Christ the God-Man and Saviour of the human race and of the whole world, within His Church, as the fruit—that is, the work and Body—of that divine dispensation. In that work and act of salvation He is the Head of the Church, the Pioneer and Perfecter of our faith and of our salvation, the Chief Shepherd and the Great High Priest.¹ Thus His Church—the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church—is a Christocracy and a Christopolity: a Christ-governed and Christ-lived reality (and not a monarchy, nor a democracy, nor a narrowly conceived “hierarchy,” nor a narrowly conceived “theocracy”).
The application, therefore, of oikonomia in the Church (which may be translated as condescension, following the example of Christ’s condescension, humility, and self-emptying—κένωσις—Phil. 2:7–8—for our salvation) is dispensational, house-building, that is, Church-building, because the Church is the House of God, and the whole divine economy of Christ pertains to her (Eph. 2:20–22; 4:11–13; 1 Tim. 3:15–16). It is not house-destroying and ruinous—not Church-destroying and Church-demolishing—as all heresies, sects, and schisms have acted throughout the centuries. Regrettably, such Church-destroying action is also found among the schismatics known as the “Old Calendarists,” both in Greece and in Serbia.
They do not believe in the Church as concrete and historical (the Church we confess in the ninth article of the Creed), and they resemble the Pharisees who did not believe in Christ, the Messiah sent to them by God, but were more concerned with whether He kept the “form of the law” and the “commandments of Moses,” that is, the literal letter rather than the life-giving Spirit of God, who “blows where He wills” (John 3:8), and, in Christ’s words, “so it is with everyone who is born (baptized) of the Spirit” (John 3:8). For in the Church—where, from Pentecost onwards, the Holy Spirit is Himself present and active, through Christ and the Father—there is no longer Pharisaical “carnal reasoning,” but “the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, lives in her,” and thus “the sons of God in the Church are led by the Spirit of God” (Rom. 8:6–14). Such sons of God, and not slaves, were—and are today—the Fathers of the Church, guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit; they are not Jewish Pharisees and scribes, but Shepherds and Teachers and “stewards (οἰκονόμοι) of the mysteries of God.”
One such Father is beyond doubt the great archpastor, theologian, liturgist, and canonist of the Orthodox Church, St Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Let us therefore consider what he says about ecclesial oikonomia.
St Basil says that, when receiving back into the Church heretics, schismatics, and sects or para-synagogues, the Fathers often exercised great oikonomia—that is, a Christ-loving and philanthropic condescension—in order to heal the wounds inflicted upon the ecclesial organism and thus contribute to the salvation of deluded souls (who, in some sense, had nonetheless remained bound to the Church). Thus a broad oikonomia was applied even towards certain less heretical factions: they were received back into the Church without re-baptism, and sometimes even without a new chrismation; only a written declaration was required, that they renounced their heresy (here “heresy” is a salvifically destructive, disseminated error—delusion, deception, and fraud—and not merely a private opinion) and accepted the true faith and communion of the catholic Church. On this distinction between heresy, schism, and para-synagogue (factional gathering), and on the application of oikonomia towards them, St Basil speaks at length in his Letter 188 to Amphilochius of Iconium (also called the First Canonical Letter), from which his first sixteen canons are taken. We cite Canon 1:²
“Concerning the Cathari, it was said before, and you have rightly reminded [me], that one must follow the customs of each region, for those who then disputed the matter held differing opinions regarding their baptism. But as for the baptism of the Pepuzians (the Montanists), I consider that there is no reason at all [to recognize it], and I marvel that the great Dionysius (of Alexandria, third century), as a canonist, overlooked this. For the ancients (the Fathers) judged that only that baptism should be recognized which in no way departs from the (Orthodox) faith. Therefore, they called some groups heresies, others schisms, and still others para-synagogues (anti-ecclesial gatherings). Heresies are those who have been entirely separated and estranged from the faith itself (the Church). Schisms are those who have fallen apart among themselves over certain ecclesial matters that are curable (correctable). Para-synagogues are gatherings that arise from disobedient presbyters or bishops, or from an (ecclesially) undisciplined people. For example: if someone has been convicted of a sin and removed from ecclesial ministry, and has not submitted to the canons but has appropriated for himself presidency and priestly service, and if certain others depart with him, leaving the catholic (that is, conciliar, Orthodox) Church—this is then a para-synagogue (like a ‘para-military’). And a schism is when some, in matters of repentance (the reception of penitents), relate differently towasrd members of the Church.”
“Heresies,” continues St Basil, “are, for example, the Manichaean, Valentinian, Marcionite, and also those of the Pepuzians (the Montanists) themselves, for here the difference lies directly in the faith in God itself. Therefore the ancient Fathers deemed it good to decree that the baptism of heretics be entirely rejected; that of schismatics—since they are still ‘from the Church’ (ἔτι ἐκ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ὄντων)—be accepted; and those in para-synagogues, once corrected by worthy repentance and conversion, should again be joined to the Church, so that often even those who were in an ecclesial rank and left with the disobedient, after repenting, might be received into the same rank. The Pepuzians (the Montanists), therefore, are clearly heretics, for they have blasphemed the Holy Spirit, unlawfully and shamelessly assigning the title Paraclete (Comforter) to Montanus and Priscilla. Therefore they are worthy of condemnation, either as those who deify human beings or as those who, by comparison with human beings, insult the Holy Spirit—and they are subject to eternal condemnation, since blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable (Matt. 12:31). What reason, then, is there to recognize their baptism, when they baptize into the Father and the Son and Montanus and Priscilla? For those are not truly baptized who are baptized into what has not been delivered to us (in the faith of the Church). Thus, even though this escaped the great Dionysius, we are not obliged to imitate an error, since what is improper and unsuitable (τὸ ἄτοπον) is of itself evident and clear to all who possess even the least capacity for discernment.”
“As for the Cathari (the Novatians),” the Saint writes further, “they too are schismatics, although the ancients (I mean Cyprian of Carthage and our Firmilian of Caesarea) placed them all in one category: the Cathari, the Encratites, the Hydroparastatae, and the Apotactites. For the beginning of their separation was due to schism; but those who departed from the Church no longer had upon them the grace of the Holy Spirit, because the transmission (ἡ μετάδοσις) of grace ceased as soon as succession was broken. For the first who separated had received from the Fathers the gift of ordination, and by the laying on of their hands they possessed a spiritual gift. But those who were cut off and became laymen had neither authority to baptize nor to ordain, nor could they give to others the grace of the Holy Spirit, from which they themselves had fallen away. Therefore the Fathers commanded that those coming from them into the Church be cleansed by the Church’s true baptism, as those baptized by laymen. But since it seemed good to certain persons in Asia (that is, in the western part of what is now Asia Minor), for the sake of the oikonomia of many (οἰκονομίας ἕνεκα πολλῶν—that is, out of condescension towards many), to accept their baptism—then let it be accepted.”³
“But we must understand well**,” the Holy Father concludes, “**the wickedness** (τὸ κακούργημα = cunning malice) of the Encratites, who, in order to make themselves unacceptable within the Church, devised the stratagem of forestalling (that is, preventing others) by means of their ‘baptism,’ and in this way altered even their own custom. Therefore I judge that, since nothing (from the Fathers) has been stated clearly about them, we should reject their baptism; and even if someone has received it from them, we should baptize them when they come to the Church. **But if this might become an obstacle to the universal (broad) oikonomia** (τῇ καθόλου οἰκονομίᾳ, that is, to the condescending reception of many together), then one should adhere to custom and follow the Fathers who wisely ordered our affairs (τοῖς οἰκονομήσασι τὰ καθ’ ἡμᾶς).”⁴
There is no need to comment at length on this exceedingly clear text of the first canon of St Basil the Great. It clearly shows how the holy canons of the Church arose from pastoral and soteriological necessity; how they were at once exact and condescending, according to pastoral need and the Church’s care—yet in every case they were Church-building.⁵ They could not have been otherwise, given that their authors were such Spirit-bearing Fathers as St Basil: strict in life and faith, and at the same time wise, tactful, and condescending towards others—even towards heretics, to a certain extent and for a certain time; towards schismatics he was condescending even more, for longer, and with greater patience—all for the building up of the Church, that is, the unity of all in Christ the Saviour of all people (let us recall the beginning of our present text, namely Chrysostom’s interpretation of Eph. 4:11–16). This Basilian disposition has thereafter been received and creatively imitated by all the Fathers and true pastors of the Church down to the present day. Surely the new “zealots” will not now accuse St Basil of “apostasy” and “betrayal,” of “ecumenism” and other similar foolishness typical of small and narrow-minded people with constricted horizons—such as they themselves are?
If we examine attentively the history of the Old-Calendarist schism, as we have thus far presented it, we shall see that this schism contains elements of heresy, schism, and para-synagogue (which is important for the case of their reception back into the Church and the application of ecclesial oikonomia towards them on that occasion). None of these elements, however, is present in the Greek New-Calendarist Church and the other Orthodox Churches, including the Serbian Church, from which they separated or are separating. The question therefore is: **why did they not apply oikonomia** with regards to the calendar change in the Church of Greece, when there is no heresy there at all, nor schism (since that Church is not in schism from the Orthodox Church on account of this matter)?
Heresy, however, is present in the Old-Calendarist schism (or more precisely, in their schisms, for there are several), because nearly all of them, from the very beginning, deny the very existence of Christ’s Church in Greece, Serbia, and Russia—Churches that are in full grace-filled canonical communion and unity with the Orthodox Ecumenical Church. They fall into heresy because they deny the grace and salvific efficacy of the Holy Mysteries and the true sanctity of the saints of these Churches. They deny this not only with respect to these Churches, but also with respect to one another, excluding each other and hurling anathemas at each other countless times, while at the same time attaching no real significance to these “anathemas.” Yet they invoke and cast upon the New-Calendarists earlier alleged “anathemas,” such as the forged “anathema” in the text of the Letter and Synodal Decision of Patriarch Jeremiah (1583 and 1593).⁶
The elements of schism and para-synagogue among the Old Calendarists are thus evident in their separation—schism—from the canonical Church (which allows them to remain on the Old Calendar, but without schism), and also in the essential canonical question of their ordinations (as we have seen), above all episcopal ordinations (not to mention priestly ones, for there it is difficult to say that there was any real regard for the canonical order and tradition of the Church). To this, too, the Church will have to pay attention in applying oikonomia when they come to ecclesial unity.
And one more thing: the Old-Calendarist schismatics, without exception, accuse all Orthodox Churches—their patriarchs, bishops, clergy, and theologians—on account of any public action, word, or gesture whatsoever: participation in ecumenical dialogue, attendance at religious encounters, or presence at a gathering with prelates of other Christian confessions; often even on the basis of incidental statements, texts, photographs, and the like. They demand that the Orthodox condemn and anathematize all this. And yet, at the same time, they themselves utter such grave words—accusations, slanders, lies, blasphemies—against the Church, against patriarchs and archpastors, against Christ’s clergy in the Church, and no one among them, from within their own milieu, demands that such irresponsible words, condemnations, slanders, blasphemies, articles, books, and actions be condemned by the Old Calendarists themselves, or that such unscrupulous persons be subjected to epitimia, removal, or some ecclesial sanction—that is, that they bear consequences for their senseless sacrilege against the Church. (For they know that such a person would then simply join another zealot faction, and there even be praised or promoted.)
Can Christians in general tolerate such words and the like? In what God do such people believe? Someone serious and prudent will tell us: one should not pay attention to all these foolishnesses, lies, slanders, and blasphemies. And that is true. But then why pay attention to particular ill-considered, incoherent, and even un-Orthodox statements made incidentally and hastily by certain representatives of the Orthodox Churches, especially in our time of an inflation of “diplomatic” language—and often of demagogy?
We, as sons of the Church of Christ, responsible for the salvation of human beings—especially those around us, our present and even our former brethren—can “return this to the Old-Calendarist zealots as foolishness.” But will that be of benefit to them, or will they become even more insolent and reckless towards the Church?
If and when schismatics from the Old-Calendarist sects approach the canonical communion of the Orthodox Church of Christ, they can certainly be covered by the great grace-filled, maternal ecclesial oikonomia of God the Lover of mankind. But if these people do not return to the fundamental biblical fear of the Lord and to Christian humility and love, then even oikonomia will be in vain for them—for they will interpret it as a cover (as “our weakness,” to use St Basil’s expression), and it may even become an additional stimulus for their loquacity and contentiousness, for insolence and stubbornness, for Church-destruction instead of Church-building.
Nevertheless, we believe that it is futile to speak at length about ecclesial oikonomia to those who neither know nor accept the very being and reality of the Church of Christ, nor the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit within her—let alone to expect them to conduct themselves within her as within the House of the Living God (1 Tim. 3:15). In any case, the Church of Greece has, until now, applied broad oikonomia towards them whenever any of them returned to the unity of the Church. (Recently, the Archbishop of Athens stated that “the Church is open to them and is studying ways for their readmission into her bosom. They should have trust in the Orthodox archpastors as true Fathers, who are not ‘ecumenists’ but remain faithful on the ramparts of the Orthodox faith. Especially the hierarchs who pastor in the wider region of Attica, where the majority of Old-Calendarist monasteries are located, should make an effort for their incorporation (ensōmátōsē) into the canonical Church.” — Orthodoxē Martyria, no. 108, 2000.)
The Orthodox Church also applies broad-hearted ecclesial oikonomia towards individuals and groups from within her own ranks when they issue careless, superficial, and irresponsible statements—cheap declarations (ecumenical, diplomatic, even syncretistic) that are theologically unreflected and not thought through to the end. But this does not mean that the Church is ignorant of the salvific measure of true and saving oikonomia. Therefore, we shall cite only the words of two Holy Fathers concerning Church-building oikonomia and its proper measure. Saint Gregory the Theologian, in his well-known Oration on Saint Athanasius the Great (we mention two Great Fathers of the Church, both exemplary instances of the wise and salvific conjunction and application of both akribeia and oikonomia), says of Athanasius and himself:
“We have economized sufficiently and worthily (that is, acted condescendingly), neither accepting what belongs to others, nor corrupting what is our own, which is the mark of bad stewards; but rather we brought our fruit (the result of pastoral labour and theology) to the light, cultivated it with care, and set it before the eyes of all, as something continually being perfected (teleioumenon—growing towards the measure of perfection).”⁷
The patristic application of oikonomia by Athanasius and Gregory in the Church extended, as is well known, even to the weaknesses of some in the faith—that is, in part even to heretics, such as many among the Easterners in the time of Saint Athanasius. Some were even opponents of the Nicene term homoousios (ὁμοούσιος, „consubstantial“) and proponents of homoiousios (ὁμοιούσιος, “of like essence”), such as Basil of Ancyra, whom Saint Athanasius called “a brother in the faith”; likewise, towards certain Pneumatomachians in the time of Saint Gregory, whom Saint Gregory called “our brethren.” In the aforementioned Oration on Saint Athanasius, Gregory the Theologian clearly states regarding Saint Athanasius and himself that, while applying oikonomia as condescension towards the weak in faith, they simultaneously took care to remain Orthodox in all things: “to remain within the boundaries of piety (en drois meinai tēs eusebeias), that is, of Orthodoxy” (Oration 21.13; PG 35, 1096).
A concise rule of Orthodox ecclesial oikonomia was articulated by Saint John Chrysostom and reiterated by Saint Mark of Ephesus: “Οἰκονομητέον ἔνθα οὐ μὴ παρανομητέον”—that is, one should apply oikonomia where no transgression of the law will occur.
From the book The Errors of Schismatics and Old Calendarists
Bishop Athanasius Jevtić (2004)
