The origin of the Pentarchy (Five Patriarchates)

The earliest churches, founded by the Apostles, were governed by a plurality of elders, as confirmed by church father Jerome in the 4th century.

By the end of the first century the leading elder, who would preside at the church gathering, preach and celebrated the Lord's Supper, came to be known as bishop. It was he who was responsible for receiving, preserving and passing on the Apostolic Teaching.

In a further development the bishop in the capital city of a given province, which was often also the mother church (first founded), came to be known as the metropolitan and had certain rights over the other bishops in his province, who were known as suffragan bishops.

By the third century, the metropolitans in capitals of dioceses (provinces were grouped into dioceses) came to be known as exarchs, mirroring the political structure of the Roman Empire. For example in the diocese of Thrace, the bishop of Heraclea was an exarch, in Asia Ephesus and in Pontus Caesarea.

In 325 at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea, after the accession of Constantine, it was ruled as follows: "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges." (Canon 6)

At the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 it was added, "Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome." (Canon 3) The Fourth Ecumenical Council later clarified the jurisdiction of Constantinople, "Consequently, the metropolitans and they alone of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, as well as the bishops among the barbarians of the aforementioned dioceses, are to be ordained by the previously mentioned very holy see of the very holy Church of Constantinople; that is, each metropolitan of the above-mentioned dioceses is to ordain the bishops of the province along with the fellow bishops of that province as has been provided for in the divine canons." (Canon 28) In other words those metropolitans with their see in diocesan capitals (exarchs) of Caesarea, Ephesus and Heraclea were now subject to the higher, ordaining authority of Constantinople.

We can see this pyramid-like structure (bishop-metropolitan-exarch-Constantinople) in canon IX of the Fourth Ecumenical Council: "If any Clergyman has a dispute with another, let him not leave his own Bishop and resort to secular courts, but let him first submit his case to his own Bishop, or let it be tried by referees chosen by both parties and approved by the Bishop. Let anyone who acts contrary hereto be liable to Canonical penalties. If, on the other hand, a Clergyman has a dispute with his own Bishop, or with some other Bishop, let it be tried by the Synod of the province. But if any Bishop or Clergyman has a dispute with the Metropolitan of the same province, let him apply either to the Exarch of the diocese or to the throne of the imperial capital Constantinople, and let it be tried before him."

At the same Council of 451 Jerusalem was granted autonomy from the See of Antioch and "the bishop of Jerusalem, or rather the most holy Church which is under him, shall have under his own power the three Palestines".

These five elevated episcopal sees, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, which enjoyed "jurisdiction" and "privileges of honour", were later designated 'patriarchates' by Justinian in 531.

Within the Empire Cyprus had autocephalous (autonomous) status from 431.

Outwith the Empire, the heads of churches were designated Catholicoi (singular 'Catholicos'), e.g. the Sassinian Church or the Armenian Church.

"Писатель лишь начинает книгу, а завершает её читатель"

В английском оригинале: "A writer only begins a book. A reader finishes it."

 

Это цитата Сэмюэла Джонсона (1709-1784гг), ученый, который написал первый словарь английского языка. Значение словаря сравнимо со Словарём Академии Российской для русского языка.

Цитируя Джонсона, я, конечно же, не сторонник крайне субъективного подхода к текстам, по которому значение текста якобы не в самом тексте, и не в авторском смысле, а в восприятии читателя. Я так не считаю.

В то же время, книга "ждет" ответа того, кто ее читает. Ответ читателя, в смысле не только реакции читателя, но и применения читателем посыла книги, завершает книгу. Можно сказать и в этом "цель" кииги. Это не означает, что читательский ответ как-то входит в состав книги. В этом смысле книга завершена и без ответа. Но, не произведя ответ, книга незавершена. И ответ читателя является своего рода "отзыва" книги.

Это можно сравнить с любовью. Можно представить себе влюбленного молодого человека. Он имеет сильные чувства к своей избраннице, совершает разные подвиги для нее. Они и без ее ответа совершенны, но если она принимает, отвечает ему взаимной любовью, то это завершает его любовь (ср. 1 Иоанна 4:17; Кол 1:24).

Если касательно текстов, а тем более Священного текста, то цитата Джонсона порождает понятие о разных "чтениях" текста. Иными словами, мое чтение, к примеру, послания к Галатам, будет отличаться от чтения того же послания в XVI веке. Или же разные чтения пророчества Иова в Сомалии или в Калифорнии. Можно это сравнить с зерном (семенем): в зависимости от почвы, в которой оно посажено, оно будет приносить разные плоды. Семя Евангелие - универсально, но плоды могут выглядеть по-разному в разных культурах и людях (самое главное, чтобы это были плоды, а не терны!).

Точка зрения (или, Когда была записана книга Руфь?)

В церкви возник вопрос о дате, когда была записана книга Руфь. Вопрос не отвлеченный, поскольку он задевает и вопросы, связанные с пониманием богодухновенности Писания, а также другие вопросы.

В библеистике есть понятие "Sitz im Leben", которое переводится как "жизненный контекст". Речь идет о том контексте, в котором был записан данный фрагмент Священного Писания. Например, повествование о сотворении мира относится и к описываемым событиям, и ко времени Моисея, который их записал. Например, выражение "земля же была безвидна и пуста" (Быт. 1:2) возможно отражает те условия в пустыне, в которых находился народ Божий в момент описания этих событий. Другой пример: переводчики Библии обращают внимание на Луки 5:19, где описание разбора крыши возможно отражает крыши из черепицы римских домов (ср. Марка 2:4).

Сразу же мы видим условный, субъективный характер этих рассуждений. Особенно, когда предлагается какой-то более радикальный вывод, такой как теория, что книга Второзаконие записана после Вавилонского пленения или другие подобные предположения. Порой, имеет смысл прислушиваться к мнению экспертов, но при этом надо всегда уточнять, на каком основании они делают данный вывод. Даже Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, сторонник поздней датировки книги Руфь, признает, что выводы основываются на "лежащих в их основе предположениях" (underlying assumptions) в том числе и касательно датировки других мест Писания, которые впоследствии используются для сравнения. К примеру, кто-то в принципе отвергает возможность пророчествовать о будущих событиях, или же предполагает множественное авторство у библейских текстов, которые якобы представляют собой некую "мозаику" из разных источников. Для подтверждения таких теорий потребовались бы древние рукописи отдельных составляющих кусков. А по факту мы имеем священный текст только в той форме, в которой мы читаем его в своём экземпляре Библии. Те незначительные различия, которые имеются, умещаются на полях наших изданий (или подробнее описываются в научных изданиях греческого Нового Завета и другой соответствующей литературе).

И все-таки, у нас нет причин отвергать понятие "жизненный контекст", ведь оно помогает нам верно воспринимать Слово Божье. На самом деле важно, что, к примеру, книга Руфь записана с точки зрения царства Давидова, ссылаясь на 4:18-22. В том числе и в этом посыл книги, авторский и божественный смысл. Также, учитывая стих 4:7, книга была записана во время, когда тот обычай (с сапогом) уже не практиковался. В этом смысле можно увидеть в стихе 4:7 тот же принцип жизненного контекста. В том же духе написан стих Судей 21:25: по логике он относится к тому времени, когда в Израиле уже был царь.

Касательно книги Руфь, есть и другие версии жизненного контекста. Некоторые (например, еврейские комментаторы Tamara Cohn Eskenazi и Tikva Frymer-Kensky) предполагают, что ее написание относится ко времени Ездры и Неемии, когда был спор о браках с иноплеменными, то есть ко времени после Вавилонского плена (V век до нэ). Однако, здесь нужно предполагать, кроме всего остального, некую каноническую полемику между противниками и сторонниками брака с иноплеменными. Руфь, также как и Раав, вошла в состав Израиля на правах новообращенной и не подлежит запрету на брак с иноверцами. В пользу поздней датировки также приводили аргумент, что языковой стиль книги имеет влияние арамейского языка, что могло иметь место только после плена.

Выступая в пользу традиционной датировки, уже в 1976 г. Edward F. Campbell Jr. аргументировал, что написание книги относится к промежутку 950-700 гг. до н.э. Он, кстати, далеко не первым поставил под сомнение языковые и грамматические детали, якобы указывающие на более позднюю редакцию (речь идет о наличии или отсутствии "новых" форм слов и влияния арамейского на иврит). А по стилю, книга Руфь ближе всего к повествованию об Иосифе в книге Бытие или же к повествованиям о Давиде в 1-й Царств. Edward F. Campbell Jr. посчитал, что упоминание о царстве Давидовом и защита его права на престол, были бы странными в контексте V века, когда уже не было царей. Kirsten Nielsen в 1997 поддерживает примерно такие же выводы.

Более того, интересующийся может, к примеру, читать здесь научную работу, относящуюся к 1911 г., которая полноценно и убедительно отвечает на разные доводы в пользу поздней датировки (несмотря на то, что сам автор разделяет разные либеральные убеждения о Св. Писании).

Возвращаясь к общему вопросу о жизненном контексте, с которого начали, хочется отметить, что он имеет место быть и даже имеет основание в самом тексте Св. Писания (Руфь 4:7). С другой стороны, нужно признать условный характер выводов, поскольку они основываются на малом количестве фактов, которые можно толковать по-разному. А должный трепет перед Словом Божьим, о котором Господь сказал "Не может нарушиться Писание", влечет за собой и трепет перед процессом написания, и перед историей сохранения Священного текста.

When is a saint not a saint? When they are a soul!

Today, 2 November, is All Souls' Day, a holy day in the western Christian calendar. 

We may be familiar with churches being called "All Souls", one of the most famous being the one on Langham Place within sight of the BBC Centre.

So what's the difference between 'saints' and 'souls'? In a sentence, the saints have already made it while the souls are still on their way... in purgatory (what has been called the "Church Penitent"). The theology of it all is rather abysmal, but, thinking out loud, I wonder if it can be 'redeemed' (pun intended). Purgatory is one of those doctrines which sneaked (snuck?) its way into the Christian faith starting in the Middle Ages. For many years it was a bone of contention between West and East, although Eastern Orthodox Christianity has a comparable notion of post-death testing: the so-called aerial toll-houses. 

The Biblical 'basis' of these doctrines is to be found in 1 Corinthians 3 - "saved through fire". Allegedly it is in a post-death fire that the soul is prepared for glory.

This notion of 'fire' provides a helpful bridge for a redemption of this concept. Fire is indeed purifying and is referenced in other texts such as in 1 Peter 4:17 to refer to believers' earthly cross-like trials, even judgments, preparing the people of God for glory. And they do so, not on account of our own merit or effort or suffering, but because of our participation in the saving merit, effort and suffering of the Saviour - crucifed and risen, suffering and glorified.  

So what I would suggest is this.

1 November reminds us of the Church Triumphant, the saints - all of them - from Abel to Zachariah, from righteous Stephen to compromised Lot, from the brightest example of Christian faith you can think of to the weakest brother or sister with all their failings who we nevertheless trust is in glory. In Christ we are all saints, departing this life flawed and mortal and instantly entering the glory of our heavenly dwelling, the object of Christian confidence not merely aspiration (Luke 23:43; Philippians 1:23, 2 Corinthians 5:3). 

And 2 November reminds us of the souls, those still on their way, to each one of us down here, the Church Militant, whose daily prayer is, "lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil", each undergoing our fiery trials and each experiencing in the midst of them the sufficient grace of God in Christ.   

What is a missionary?

I was inspired to write this article by a recent, largely helpful blogpost by missionaries involved in Bible translation, although my thoughts have been 'cooking' for many years. I should point out that I have been/was a 'missionary' (we'll come back to that word) for something like 17 of 45 years of my life. Subject to what I will say below, it is a description I embrace. And, if you didn't know already, there are countless thousands, if not millions of Christians across the world who right now are giving their all to serve God in challenging settings, proclaiming the Word and helping the needy.

I will get straight to my point. I have a problem with the concept of 'sending' and thus with the term 'missionary'. This may seem bemusing, but if you ask those who have been engaged in 'mission' you will hear countless stories of insensitive people (often including the missionaries themselves) storming into other cultures and settings and imposing their agenda, setting up local branches of their church back home and promoting their pet brands and causes. By contrast there is a species of Christians who have really 'gone native' (I know it sounds awfully colonial, but you know what I mean). They have learnt the language, embraced the culture, loved the people and often, notwithstanding challenges and setbacks, their lives and ministries have seen lasting fruit.

Just this Sunday I was talking to one such man. Humble, generous, kind, outgoing, sensitive,
intelligent - the list could go on. I was asking him about his involvement with a college for training pastors. And he shared about how he had taught a module on the history of the African church. He went on to qualify that the course was intended not from the perspective of 'sending' but rather from the perspective of 'receiving'. He told me that many of our 'missionary stories' exist in a different form in those places where they took place. So we need to approach mission not in terms of those sending and sent, but rather in terms of those receiving. This ties in well with a concept taught us by Jonathan Lamb and others in the 1990s when I first travelled to Russia and the Former Soviet Union: namely partnership, i.e. a non-domineering two-way relationship in which we participate in the lives of those we serve (and they participate in ours).

Ask any Russian pastor and they will have stories to tell of well-meaning missionaries from places such as the UK, USA or Germany inadvertently or carelessly acting inappropriately. On several occasions I have met wet-behind-the-ears, ab-initio-language learners who have been 'given' cities and whole areas by their sending missions. I sat through a sermon in which teetotal Baptists were told that being filled with the Spirit was like feeling jovial after a drink. Missionaries from one international mission which should know better 'discovered' an unreached people group, the Gaelic speakers of the Highlands and islands (one of the remaining strongholds of Christianity in the British isles).  

So how does that impact on the meaning of missionary? I concede that there will also be sending. Indeed the ultimate Sender is not the support group or the local church, but the Lord himself who breathed the Spirit from the Father on the assembled Apostles (John 20). But I would like to add that a missionary is 'one who is received' (cf. Mark 9:36-37). And mission is not merely about sending and giving, but about exchange. The 'missionary' must overcome the 'benefactor's complex' and engage with those whom he or she serves, embracing them, loving them, considering them as equals and willing to receive from them. We see this clearly in the Apostolic practice: Lydia insisting on hospitality for Paul, Paul speaking to the Philippians of his 'partnership' (from the word koinos, business partner) with them in the gospel, the Gentile Christians supporting their Jewish brethren and many other examples. "At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality." (2 Cor 8:13)  

Смешанные метафоры (Н. Т. Райт)

"Павел — мастер богатых смыслом смешанных метафор; так, в следующей главе, в 1-м послании к Фессалоникийцам 5-я глава, он говорит о приходе ночного вора, после чего у женщины начинаются родовые схватки, а потому не следует упиваться, но вместо этого бодрствовать, облекшись в броню. Как говорят в телепередачах, не пытайтесь это делать в домашних условиях!"

(Райт, Главная тайна Библия) 

Democracy in the EU: what you didn't vote for

Within the EU institutions it has long been recognised that there is a 'democratic deficit'.

However, like many problems in the EU it seems that nothing can be done to rectify it. (Another such problem is the seat of the European Parliament.)

The recent appointments at the top of the EU are a case in point.

In response to the prospect of Brexit and in the run-up to the European elections various videos were posted on Facebook, schooling people about the European institutions and how they work. The alleged misinformation by Brexiteers and others was being 'dispelled'.

Recent days have shown the reality of how the EU is actually governed. Four major appointments have been made: the President of the Commission, the President of the Council, the Chair of the European Parliament and the Head of the European Central Bank. In each case the appointments have been agreed behind closed doors and presented to the citizens of the European Union as a fait accompli. Formally, of course, these candidates have to be approved, but the process is a formality. There are no alternative candidates. There is no way for the voting public of the European Union to have its say. Indeed during the course of the recent elections to the European Parliament these candidates were not put forward or even named. In the case of the European Commission there was even a preliminary hustings for potential candidates - but the winner was not part of this process. The 'winners' will now occupy significant positions of power.

This is not democracy in any meaningful sense of the word.

Representative democracy involves an electorate scrutinising, electing, hold to account and potential removing from office members of parliament. These members sit in parliaments where debates take place, votes are taken, bills passed or otherwise. In some cases the members are subjected to press scrutiny. They have to answer questions. They can be recalled and, even if they aren't, they carry out their duties in the sure knowledge of another election in 4-5 years time. This urgency is even more apparent in the case of government ministers.

The EU institutions, in their present form, simply do not live up to this standard.

MEPs are elected with turnouts well below 50% by electorates who often have little idea who or what they are voting for. They then sit in a huge parliament numbering almost 800 members, debating motions about which the general public are largely ignorant, resulting in legislation which is mandatory throughout the EU.

The European Commission is even worse. Its members are unelected, very often consisting of national politicians who have resigned or reached the end of their 'shelf life' in their countries of origin. Their allegiance is not to the electorate so much as the European project per se. Just as they are co-opted by backroom deals, so they are unaccountable. There was at least one case of a mass resignation in 1999, however this was in response to a damning report, not something won by the EU electorate. The European Commission is the 'executive' arm of the EU, the European 'government'. In what meaningful sense can it be said that anyone in the United Kingdom or Germany or anywhere else for that matter, even the most devoted Europhile, voted to be governed by Ursula von der Leyen? How many people outside Germany even knew her name before her appointment was announced? (This is not a personal slight against the mother-of-seven and current Minister of Defence in Germany, but rather an objection to the way in which she has been appointed.)  

Finally, there is the European Council. Now, unlike the previous two institutions, the Council is made up of ministers accountable to national parliaments and electorates. The European Council does, to an extent, reflect what remains of national sovereignty within the EU. However, an important position in the Council is the President, elected for a two-and-a-half-year term (renewable once). Since the treaty of Lisbon this position has been held by Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium, Donald Tusk of Poland (who during the Brexit negotiations famously assigned his UK colleagues a place in Dante's Inferno) and, most recently, Charles Michel of Belgium. Again, I am sure Charles Michel is a nice guy, but readers are invited to read up on the latter's political career. In my personal opinion, hardly a CV meriting appointment to the role of leader of a 500 million superstate. 

What I cannot comprehend is why in the minds of tens of millions of Europeans this unwieldy, undemocratic, flawed juggernaut has become the object of quasi-messianic expectations. I treasure the postwar French-German friendship and am all for international friendship and cooperation. But this cannot be equated with what is a seemingly unstoppable rush towards greater and greater centralisation at the expense of democratic accountability and common sense combined with an almost total inability to learn from past mistakes or rectify identified problems.

Surely there must be a better way.