God, Hierarchy, and Power: Orthodox Theologies of Authority from Byzantium

Orthodox Christianity & Contemporary Thought

by Ashley M. Purpura

In the current age where democratic and egalitarian ideals have preeminence, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, among other hierarchically organized religious traditions, faces the challenging questions: “Why is hierarchy maintained as the model of organizing the church, and what are the theological justifications for its persistence?” These questions are especially significant for historically and contemporarily understanding how Orthodox Christians negotiate their spiritual ideals with the challenges of their social and ecclesiastical realities.

To critically address these questions, this book offers four case studies of historically disparate Byzantine theologians from the sixth to the fourteenth-centuries―Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor, Niketas Stethatos, and Nicholas Cabasilas―who significantly reflect on the relationship between spiritual authority, power, and hierarchy in theoretical, liturgical, and practical contexts. Although Dionysius the Areopagite has been the subject of much scholarly interest in recent years, the applied theological legacy of his development of “hierarchy” in the Christian East has not before been explored.

Relying on a common Dionysian heritage, these Byzantine authors are brought into a common dialogue to reveal a tradition of constructing authentic ecclesiastical hierarchy as foremost that which communicates divinity.

240 pages, Hardcover

Published November 7, 2017

Reviews

[Ted · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm no fan of Dionysian theology, and Purpura's book is an examination of the (Pseudo-)Dionysian ideas of hierarchy and power which she claims are the basis for an Orthodox understanding of salvation and the church. I read the book because of my distaste for Pseudo-Dionysian and what I think is his bad influence over Orthodoxy. I will admit that from Purpura I got the sense that Pseudo-Dionysius "properly understood" is a system of thinking that can express the values of the Gospel. But my problem is that "properly understood" is so tenuous that it rapidly falls apart. Her claim is that the ideas of power and hierarchy in Pseudo-D are true when one understands the role of church leaders is to make divinity present for the salvation of all. When those in leadership remain faithful to the humility, self-emptying of Christ, they make Christ present for all. The immediate problem I can see is that ideas of hierarchy and power were also completely shaped by Byzantine imperial ideas which overwhelm the potential goodness in what Pseudo-D said. By the time Nicholas Stethatos comes along, he completely removes the laity from the hierarchy (and probably women too) and has a church which is total clericalism re-enforced with Byzantine imperialism which abandons the laity altogether. The liturgy becomes the work of the clergy with the laity as nothing more than an audience watching the clerical drama unfold. The laity is locked outside the icon wall so as not to sully the clerical ritualism. I also do not understand how these ideas of hierarchy work in the real world. Who decides if those in the hierarchy are being faithful to Christ or not? I'm sure both Pat Kirill and Pat Bartholomew believe they are right in opposing each other, but who is to decide which one represents the faith? People are not supposed to criticize those in the ranks above them, so no matter how bad things are and abusive, those in the lower ranks are supposed to remain silent, unless they are right in their criticisms, but who decides? It seems to me the system comes down to there being only one virtue - obedience to hierarchy which in the eyes of hierarchs guarantees absolute order. It institutionalizes corruption and problems. It offers no clear path as to how to deal with human sinfulness, foibles, follies or hubris, though there is the idea that if anyone in the hierarchy is guilty of sin, foibles, abuse, folly or hubris, then in fact they aren't in the hierarchy - but who decides this let alone enforces it? That remains totally vague and becomes a system to allow corruption to go on. Also, if as she claims the only true power is from God, then how do you explain all the fuss about Satan and demons which seem to have power over everyone especially the monks? Her book helped me understand Pseudo-D but did not at all convince me that his thinking is good for the church. And I still see him as rising to popularity and power in Orthodoxy based on a lie - that he was a first Century bishop when he was a 6th Century monk. The lie propelled his thinking into popularity (admittedly there was an audience ready to embrace his ideas because they were already liked by the hierarchically minded) but I think if the church had embraced the truth (which some ancients recognized) that Pseudo-D was in fact pseudo, his ideas on hierarchy would not have so readily spread in the Church. And amazingly, he introduced a change and innovation into the church with his notions of hierarchy and yet it was embraced. Note the Nicene Creed makes no mention of the Church being hierarchical. This I think is because Pseudo-D was in fact late innovation and not how the early church saw itself or its members (who Christ said are all to be brothers and sisters). Hierarchical ideas come to power in the Byzantine Church and are legitimized as a result of a 6th Century monk who was advocating innovation and novel ideas which were music to the ears of the hierarchy.

[Gordon Arthur · Rating 5 out of 5]

At first, I wondered where this book was going, as the author's account of Pseudo-Dionysius made it seem as though he spiritualised hierarchy in theory to the point where it had little connection with hierarchy in practice. However, as she developed her argument, it became evident that, with modifications and as developed by subsequent Byzantine theologians, this approach could act as a corrective to over-rigid conceptions of hierarchy in practice. Well worth a read.