Kostake Milkov
Over the past nearly three decades since 1989 the Balkans have undergone events of monumental magnitude: the demise of Soviet and Communist domination of not only the Balkans, but of all of Central and Eastern Europe, along with the breaking up of the Soviet Union into 15 independent republics, and movement toward market economies. This transition was most violent in the Balkans with the deadly overthrow of Ceausescu’s regime in Romania, the disintegration of Yugoslavia into civil war, and the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999. The most frequently used term for this series of events is transition. No aspect of Balkan society remains unaffected by this transition. The sudden crumbling of the old system—almost overnight—revealed to us that we had neither the infrastructure nor the methodology necessary to incorporate the values of western democracies into our own societies. We tormented ourselves with elections that resembled tribal wars; we introduced new approaches to education without taking the time and effort to properly measure the results; but above all, we took religion and culture for granted.
Globalization versus Tribalization
In reality, Balkan religion and culture have been torn in two different directions. Those favoring a Western orientation insist on the advantages of pluralism and tolerance. Religious and cultural conservatives, in contrast, are adamant in their attachment to tradition, the glorious tradition of one’s faith, language, literature, and song—in other words, one’s “pure,” undefiled culture. An uncompromising mentality in both camps brooks no meeting of minds, but rather hardened dichotomies: ours versus theirs, winners versus losers, persecutors versus persecuted, and truth tellers versus falsifiers. We are witnessing two simultaneous and contradictory movements: globalization and tribalization.
Multiculturalism versus Tradition
Many support multiculturalism as a counter to unfettered majority rule that marginalizes minorities. Others deem this trend as a threat to longstanding religious and cultural traditions to the extent that no group can claim primacy for its cultural “truthfulness.” Hence, on one side, is the watchword tolerance, accompanied by the mantra of human rights and the defense of minority rights. On the other side, those who swear by their tradition, language, and faith consider the imposition of multiculturalism and tolerance as a violation of their rights.
Characteristic of both camps is the tendency to interpret their differences as irreconcilable. Consequently, any sort of resolution, unless it involves the unconditional surrender of those holding the opposing view, is considered absolutely impossible. Contenders in this culture war, instead of thinking of the common good of all of society’s participants, argue that opposing positions are mutually exclusive. The result is that supporters of tolerance apply the principle to all others except those supporting the principle of traditional values, while traditionalists, for their part, regard all threats to traditional values, real and imagined, as intolerable.
Proponents of so-called multicultural tolerance insist on less and less space for the influence of faith in society. They hope to reduce religion to the private life of the individual, while opening as wide as possible a space for a culture of unrestricted individualism and free expression for painters, writers, musicians, etc. Traditionalists, for their part, press for state support for the majority faith as a source of social stability and the development of healthy future generations. The turmoil generated by these two conflicting worldviews pervades the Balkans, especially Macedonia.
How is this schizophrenic condition of the Balkans to be interpreted? How does one negotiate the region’s almost unanimous consensus that its future lies with a united Europe, while simultaneously defending a sectarian insistence upon privilege for one’s own tradition, especially regarding the role of faith and culture?
The Eastern Orthodox Legacy
An appreciation of the difficulties faced in the Balkans today depends in good measure upon an understanding of the region’s Eastern Orthodox legacy. Eastern Orthodox in the Balkans claim a rich Christian heritage that, they contend, has been unbroken ever since the time of the New Testament. Balkan Orthodox maintain that theirs is the only true church and that the other Christian confessions, Roman Catholicism included, have fallen from communion with Christ. Ecumenical dialogue in which Orthodox churches have participated has not really changed this view, especially at the grassroots level. It is not surprising, then, that one of the greatest challenges that Balkan Orthodox face is nationalism. As a rule, Orthodox believers consider their nationality and their faith as one and the same. Therefore, if one is Macedonian, Serbian, Bulgarian, or Greek, then one is an Orthodox Christian. Orthodox leaders are well aware of this popular attitude, and they employ it to enhance people’s loyalty to the Orthodox Church as a component of their national identity. In the eyes of most Orthodox clergy, their church, which helped people remain Christian during Ottoman rule, has the very same role today in protecting its believers against other religious influences, especially from any Western form of Christianity. Presently Orthodox consider evangelical Protestantism as the greatest threat. In the Balkans evangelical denominations date back more than a century, and although insignificant in numbers, they can be deemed traditional. The significant increase in the number of Balkan Orthodox converts to Protestantism following the fall of Communism in 1989 has put Orthodoxy on the defensive.
Symphonia versus Separation of Church and State
One has to keep in mind that the Orthodox legacy in the Balkans is closely tied to the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire’s understanding of legitimate rule: it was to be a symphonia of dual secular and ecclesiastic authority. The two-headed eagle on the Byzantine coat-of-arms was the visual representation of the dictum that the emperor and the patriarch were to rule together. The patriarch was to ensure that the Empire kept the true faith, and the Emperor was to defend the true faith. This legacy leads Balkan Orthodox clergy to defend the vision of the one true church leading the people in the true faith, with secular governments responsible for the protection of the Orthodox faith.
Although all the Balkan states are parliamentary democracies, with constitutional separation of church and state, tacit religious discrimination against nonOrthodox is nevertheless the case. Many Orthodox deem state privilege important because the general commitment of the population to Orthodoxy is quite nominal. Among the younger generation in particular, secularism, globalization, materialism, atheism, and vestiges of folk religion all combine to undermine serious Orthodox observance.
Countering these trends, a revival of Orthodox monastic spirituality and missionary work is instilling greater devotion among nominal Orthodox believers. Zealous priests lead most of these efforts, priests who oppose the presence and witness of non-Orthodox Christians, especially evangelicals. On the other hand, a few Orthodox clergy and theologians do not disapprove of evangelicals, rather seeing them as allies in reclaiming indifferent nations for Christ. While such cases are very rare, they still could be—and to a certain extent already are—a stepping stone toward genuine Orthodox-evangelical dialogue, better mutual understanding, and appreciation, rather than mere tolerance.
Balkan Evangelicals One of the great lessons
Balkan evangelical Christians can learn is that a good share of the Orthodox legacy is their common Christian heritage: Christ as both wholly divine and wholly human, the Trinity, the substitutionary death of Christ, the commitment to biblical ethics and the preservation of traditional family values, are all very prominent in both Orthodoxy and evangelicalism. I do not advocate that evangelicals either stop their evangelistic work in traditionally Orthodox lands or simply direct evangelical efforts toward assisting nominal Orthodox re-appropriating their faith. Rather, I wish to stress the common ground Orthodox and evangelical followers of Christ share. If Balkan evangelical Christians study the influence of Orthodoxy upon their respective countries, they will uncover a rich Christian legacy that can serve them well in evangelism. Such openness to the value of the Orthodox tradition in the Balkans requires a vulnerability that is possible only with spiritual maturity far beyond mere declarative adherence to the right set of beliefs. Such openness to another Christian confession requires tireless demonstrations of Christlikeness through personal example, and only when needed, in words.
A Lesson from Maximus the Confessor
In closing, let today’s Christians, Eastern Orthodox and evangelical, be inspired by a good word from a sixth-century monk and theologian, Maximus the Confessor. Maximus’ commentary on the Lord’s Prayer, Expositio orationis dominicae, his most succinct spiritual exegesis of Scripture, gives in a relatively short text the essence of his views on self-sacrifice and renunciation, otherwise widely dispersed through his writings. Maximus here contends that the self-emptying of Christ for the sake of the world ought to be the model for all believers, again, for the sake of the world. Maximus makes this clear at the onset of his exposition on the Lord’s Prayer: “For the words of the prayer make request for whatever the Word of God himself wrought through the flesh in his self-abasement.”1 In other words, everyone who says the words of Christ in the prayer is also asking to participate in Christ’s self-abasement. For Maximus the principal link between humankind and God is the Incarnation in which the Almighty empties Himself in order to truly participate in human nature; in turn, so that man can truly participate in the divine nature.
In interpreting the Bible, Maximus never loses sight of the biblical portrayal of the cosmic battle that impacts earthly affairs. For him the Kingdom of God that Jesus inaugurated is in contrast to earthly governments (Matthew 20:28). Furthermore, Christians should forgive all those who have sinned against them. As well, they should identify with all victims of power, just as Jesus Himself identified with humanity by taking on Himself human flesh.
Maximus adds another incentive to his plea against hatred and the estrangement that follows: In forgiving those who have grieved us, we acknowledge them as fellow human beings.2 Maximus’ anthropological egalitarianism is based on the idea that all human beings in their basic natural state are of equal status before God because they are created after His image. All human persons carry the divine image in themselves, and should act towards each other as God in Christ acts towards us, practicing forgiveness. It is because of the image of God implanted in His human creation that human forgiveness is possible.3 As Maximus writes, “When the Lord says ‘Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you,’… He does not command the impossible, but clearly what is possible…. The Lord Himself…has shown it to us by His very works.” This means that God expects human beings to do what is clearly within their capacity when aided by divine grace. In Expositio orationis dominicae, Maximus argues that only as we forgive others are we in a position to pray for the forgiveness of our own sins.4
Maximus reminds his readers that they are to conquer the world in the same manner that Christ conquered it. The wording in Liber asceticus 15 is strong confirmation of Maximus’ ideal of love as the renunciation of all satanic scheming and reasoning. Victory is to be won through love that is “giving up.” The focal point of the apostle’s ministry of reconciliation is that “by giving way, they conquered those who thought to conquer.”5
For Maximus, divine selflessness and love are not just figures of speech, or a literary device to move believers to a better appreciation of benevolence. Rather, Maximus literally means what he says. The exhortation “to be concerned for others more than for ourselves” finds an echo in Maximus’ Epistle 44. Maximus states that by the Incarnation, God has fulfilled the law of love that He has established. For Maximus this is a sign that the unthinkable has happened: God, the absolute being, the self-sufficient Creator to whom all creatures owe their existence, is willing to value humanity, and in it the whole world, as something worthy of sacrifice. The believer’s love is proven true only if it pierces through the boundaries of self-love in sacrifice for the sake of the other. 6
Maximus’ Prescription for Overcoming Animosities
Today we live in a world that is trending toward greater parochialism, defensiveness, isolation, clannishness, and closed-mindedness. Increasingly we observe nations determined to exclude the other, the stranger, in an over-protective bid to preserve a certain perceived “way of life.” Fueling these trends are fear of terrorism, ongoing conflict in the Middle East, and a vast refugee crisis. Results have included rising racial and religious animosity, as demonstrated by emboldened right-wing movements and parties across Europe, Britain’s departure from the European Union (Brexit), and anti-foreigner rhetoric in 2016 U.S. elections.
In our present predicament we would be well-served to listen to the wisdom of the past in order to understand the present and provide hope for the world of tomorrow. One small but significant step to that good goal would be to heed the message of unconditional love and selflessness of Maximus the Confessor.
Notes
- Maximus the Confessor, Expositio orationis dominicae; Corpus Christianorum: Series Graeca, Vol. 23, ed. by P. Van Deun (Leuven, Belgium: Turnhout, 1991), pp. 65-67.
- Ibid., p. 69.
- Maximus the Confessor, Liber asceticus; Corpus Christianorum: Series Graeca, Vol. 40, ed. by P. Van Deun (Leuven, Belgium: Turnhout, 2000), p. 19; Luke 6: 27-28.
- Maximus the Confessor, Expositio, p. 69.
- Maximus the Confessor, Liber asceticus, p. 35.
- Maximus the Confessor, Epistolae xlv; Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca, Vol. 91, ed. by J.P. Migne (Paris: 1857-1866), p. 91.
Edited excerpts published with permission from Kostake Milkov, “Renunciation in the Thought of Maximus the Confessor,” Ph.D. dissertation, Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University, 2010.
Kostake Milkov holds a master’s and doctor of philosophy degree in patristic theology from Oxford University. He is an ordained minister in the Evangelical Church in Macedonia and director of the Balkan Institute for Faith and Culture.