Faith without cost or witness with a price?

 

The image that prevailed, in order to render more faithfully the presence of the Church in history, is the ship. For indeed the Church travels, sails like a ship in the ocean of the ages.

Wishing, according to the command of the Lord, to remain a “new creation” in its historical course, the Church from the beginning took a position opposite those forces that were determining and shaping the society of that time and at the same time distinguished its position, as a “communion of grace and salvation,” from the institutions and structures of society, which the PAX ROMANA imposed with its firm centralization. Thus the Church radically separated herself, as the Body of Christ, from Judaism (this work is owed chiefly to the Apostle Paul) and cut off from her bosom the Judaizers, that is, those who wished to subject Christianity to the letter of the law and Jewish formalism, stifling the universality of the Church within Jewish nationalism (phyletism).

She also separated herself from Hellenism, as nationalism–idolatry, and excluded from her communion the Hellenizing tendencies, which wished to mix Christianity with the pseudo-philosophy and mythology of the world (e.g. Gnosticism), limiting the role of Christianity to the cultic frameworks of a religion and thus transforming it into a substitute, or even a secondary complement of idolatry.

On the other hand, moreover, remaining faithful the Church to her universal and eternal mission and her theanthropic character, which excludes every tendency of her being confined within the worldly and transience, she distinguished herself (always in the persons of her Saints, of course) also from the Roman–state spirit, which attempted repeatedly, especially from the 4th century onward, to exploit the Church, using her as a means for the increase and consolidation of its influence. Certainly, this struggle is waged unceasingly by the Saints, the conscious and Spirit-bearing members of the Church—who always remain uncompromising and unyielding.

The Church, thus, coexists with the world, but does not identify with it. She differentiates herself—contrary to the civilization, the philosophy, the institutions of the world, for “she has not here an abiding city…” (Heb. 13:14). She is continually in via (on the way). Her stance toward the world is always critical and admonitory, but at the same time loving. Therefore, when she “withdraws” from the world, she does so without hatred toward the world. And when she remains in the world, she assumes the world, but in order to save the world and not to become secularized, to become world herself. Thus the Church avoids, on the one hand, ecclesiological monophysitism (denial of mission within the world) and ideological nestorianism (relativization of the divine Truth for the sake of the world).

The presence of Christians within the world and their coexistence with non-Christians and authority (Roman or Jewish), at times indifferent toward them and at times hostile, was bound to create serious problems. One of the most basic was the shaping of the relations of the Church, not as a Priesthood, but as the Body of Christ (that is, a society constituted in Christ), with the power structures and forces of the surrounding world. For in contrast to ancient Israel, which constituted a particular people within a clearly defined living space, the new Israel, the Church, was quickly found dispersed in the world, among various peoples, who, despite the unity of the PAX ROMANA, had their own customs, their own way of life and, above all, their own religious faith, which of course could not be harmonized with the faith of the Church. These conditions for the presence of the ecclesiastical body within the world of that time, as well as the practical difficulties that arose, are described in a masterful manner by the famous text of the 2nd century, the well-known Epistle “To Diognetus.”

The Church, as a society, faced from the beginning the need to accept the “political ministry” within her own body, for she considers it necessary and accords it value. At the same time, however, she distinguishes her own political ministry from the “political authority” of the surrounding world, from which, of course, she could not demand a Christian spirit and dispositions, because it was not hers, since it lived in “godlessness” (Eph. 2:12!) and was expressed in hostility toward Christ and His People. With the “political authority” of the world (the “outside” State) the Church maintained formal relations (they could be characterized as external), which were expressed, among other things, by the word of the Lord “render the things of Caesar to Caesar and the things of God to God” (Matt. 22:21) and by the word of the ap. Paul “render… to whom the tax, the tax; to whom the toll, the toll…” (Rom. 13:7). These passages, however, demonstrate the formation already of relations (better: stances) both by the Lord and by the Apostles toward the “worldly authority” (State), which at a certain moment are recorded in the New Testament books (classical development in Rom. 13:1 ff.).

Externally, therefore, wherever the Church may be, as a community organized in a place, she maintains these purely formal relations with the secular political authority; internally, however, she exists and functions as a whole—an independent society, with her spiritual and her socio-biological dimension, even if there were no “systems” and “established” legislation, since everything in the life of the faithful and of the ecclesiastical body takes place primarily by the Grace (Illumination) of the Holy Spirit, when of course He dwells within the faithful (cf. Rom. 8:9: if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you). Thus, the whole Church spread as a Christian commonwealth within the ancient world, with Jerusalem as center and a unified way of life and organization (principle of the canonical law of the Church). [1]

The determination of the relations of the Members of the Church with the idolatrous State was a delicate and difficult matter, on which the Holy Apostles had to formulate, in the Holy Spirit, certain general principles of consideration and conduct: “render therefore the things of Caesar to Caesar and the things of God to God.” What did this word mean?

Our Lord, to those who addressed to Him the question whether they should pay tax to Caesar or not, with the aim of trapping Him, gave a silencing answer of divine wisdom and inspiration, of timeless value and significance.

He urged the rendering by subjects to the respective ruler only of that which belongs to him, that is, the payment of tax and generally the faithful observance and fulfillment of obligations toward the respective political authority, without piety being harmed; at the same time, He emphasized the obligation of offering to God the things that belong to Him, that is, absolute faith, obedience, and worship. The obligations of subjects toward the State are not necessarily in opposition to their liturgical duties toward the true God; the obligations toward the State and the duties toward God must be combined, and these two clearly distinct spheres, State and Church, are not necessarily incompatible. For the authority of Caesar, without being sanctified, is regarded not as contrary, but as in accordance with the order of human affairs granted by God.

The instruction concerning submission applies only insofar as the Authority does not intervene in the religious conscience of each of its citizens and subjects and does not proceed to acts or commands contrary to the divine Teaching. Every unlawful demand, toward the corruption of consciences and the trampling of divine Commandments, is met with heroic and decisive refusal and witness. The Apostle Peter, with his likewise glorious Martyrdom, demonstrated most clearly the truth and validity of these positions. [2]

In the first centuries of persecution of the Christians and on the occasion of certain annual related ceremonies, the representatives of the subjected cities, by their presence at them, essentially indicated and renewed their subjection and their loyalty to the emperor and to Rome. The office of priest was a public, state office; the priests were chosen from among the most eminent senators, and the office of the supreme high priest (Pontifex maximus) was consciously assumed by the emperor himself. This fact in itself connects, and indeed closely, the Roman religion with the public administration; therefore, reasonably, the refusal of participation in religious worship and the related ceremonies, apart from impiety, was also taken as refusal of obedience to the “sacralized” public order, consequently also as disturbance of public order, hence the charge of high treason against any transgressor.

Naturally, reasonable and suspicious perplexity was caused among the idolaters by the non-participation of the Christians in the public spectacles, particularly indeed in an era when “bread and spectacles” was a slogan and a way of life. Thus, along with the rest, the stance of the Christians was considered misanthropy and became the core of the accusation against them, that they were enemies of the human race. An accusation at least scandalous, as were all the others besides, given that it concerned and characterized those people who lived and put into practice love toward neighbor and unconditional philanthropy.

According to the Roman view of religious matters, Christianity did not fulfill the conditions on the basis of which the Roman authority proclaimed a religion as permitted, since it was not an ancient ancestral religion of some specific people. Even if it is supposed that it was eventually recognized as a permitted religion, it is by no means certain—on the contrary, it is rather unlikely—that the Christians would be exempted from the self-evident obligation of all subjects to recognize and participate in the worship, at least of the emperor and of Rome, if not also of the other Roman deities. Non-participation in these always meant for the Roman authorities impiety, atheism, a crime of sacrilege. It is worth noting that for these charges there were already laws providing for the relevant punishments; consequently, new ones were not needed for the “violations” that came from Christians. On the contrary, for the Christians, participation in these meant denial of faith in the One and only God, consequently a most grave sin. [3]

The old examples—events—are countless and we believe known. In the contemporary era, 80% of persecuted Christians are persecuted by Muslims. The first 10 countries on the list are inhabited, at a rate of 90% and above, by Muslims.

History teaches that Islamic religious fanaticism converted half of the Christian world into Islamic, in Egypt, Turkey, Syria, North Africa. All these once Christian regions are today called the Muslim world. The only choice of Christians, in order to survive, is to become Islamized.

There are testimonies of Muslim historians of the Middle Ages who mention the persecutions of Christians, the burning of churches, the massacres against the “infidels,” the seizure and the violent Islamization of women and children.

In Egypt and Syria, it is estimated that about 30,000 churches were destroyed in the 15th century, while Christians were forced, by violence, to become Islamized. Persecutions against Christians take place in 40 Muslim states today, in which the tradition of the old persecutions is maintained, which was born 14 centuries ago and simply seeks the extermination of the “infidels.”

At the beginning of the First World War, the Christian population of the Middle East reached approximately 20% of the total. Today it is about 4%. It is estimated that about 13 million Christians remain in the region, and this number may decrease further taking into account the ongoing destabilization of Syria and Egypt, two countries with historically large Christian populations. [4]

At the present rate of decrease, there may well be no significant Christian presence in the Middle East, in one or two generations. Indicative is the fact that the Christian population of Syria has fallen from 30% in 1920 to less than 10% today.

In summary, throughout time the Church of the Martyrs, the Confessors, and the Fathers did not yield to any institutional pressure when it came into conflict with faith and witness. On the contrary, the Church set limits to the world, not the world to the Church. Saints and New Martyrs and countless others did not compromise with the law of their time when it clashed with the law of Christ. This is the essence of witness. Orthodox Tradition does not know what is convenient for an institution, nor what is required for recognition by political bodies; but it knows the faith and the example of the Apostles and the Fathers. The Church is not placed under the state or under the perspective of a state, but above it on the basis of Jesus Christ. The Saints bore witness because the truth of the Gospel collided with every other system of authority that demanded their religious, ideological, or liturgical compromise. Fidelity to the martyrial phronema of the Church was not formed and is not formed in conditions of security, but within persecutions, exiles, martyrdoms, and confessions. The Church did not grow because she learned to adapt and to compromise correctly, but because she learned to confess truly. And this measure does not change with the ages, however much the arguments may change.

If the question is honestly posed as to whether we are confessors ready to undergo martyrdom for the faith, especially today when the discourse that increasingly prevails trains us in the logic of compromise and when compromise is baptized discernment, then the answer unfortunately is given in advance: the synaxaria of old and contemporary confessing martyrs will be read as simple fairy tales or will not be read at all, with the consequence of an insult to the martyrs themselves.

The Lord Himself warned, “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20). It is humanly understandable for one to fear the cost of witness, but the Orthodox faith teaches us to prepare for martyrdom. What causes intense concern today is when the fear of martyrdom is not recognized with a humble phronema as weakness, but is proclaimed as a theological argument and presented as an indication of discernment, pastoral responsibility, responsible or mature ecclesiastical stance. Thus, confession ceases to be understood as a calling and is transformed into an object of negotiation. In this case, the mission of the Church is not merely limited, but altered. From witness to the truth unto sacrifice, it risks being transformed into the maintenance of balances, into institutional survival, or into management of relations. It is not merely personal cowardice, but a change of mentality. And when the mentality changes, the way the Church exists in the world also changes, whether we prophesy, or cast out demons, or even if we perform miracles.

 

[1] Protopresbyter George D. Metallinos, “Church and State in the Orthodox Tradition.”

[2] Address at the Clergy–Laity Assembly C (“Church and Politics”) of the Holy Metropolis of Oropos and Phyle, Zephyrion of Attica, Thursday 15/28.11.2013.

[3] Petros Parthenis, “The Persecution of Nero and the Decriminalization of the Name.”

[4] Persecutions of Christians throughout the world in the 21st century. The New Era of Christian Martyrdoms. Maria Karatsalou-Georgoula, President of P.C.H.O.O.I.

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2026/02/blog-post_84.html