One of the first things that I learned at seminary, many years ago, was that Christians have never been the majority in any country, at any time. I had mistakenly thought that this had been the case in both the Byzantine and Russian Empires. But the late, great Professor John Meyendorff pointed out that even in both these instances, the majority of the population only formally belonging to the Church. Those in living communion with the Church have always been a minority in their own countries — and even within their own Churches.
In the current situation, therefore, we do well to refer to a ‘majority Church’ as simply the largest Church in any given country or region.
According to the Gospels, the path of a Christian is difficult, but at the same time wonderful. The difficulty means that only a few choose to follow Christ in such a way that they remain in Christ, and Christ in them. Although the line between the committed and the indifferent Christian is thin, there is in the tradition of the Orthodox Church, however, criteria for true communion with the Church.
The most important criterion is eucharistic communion. Without it, man is but an “associate” member of the Body of Christ. Eucharistic communion in turn, requires awareness of the continuing correction in one’s life through repentance. That consciousness is maintained by personal prayer, reading of the Scripture and participation in liturgical life. Awareness of one’s own development, in turn, leads people to the healing sacraments of the Church. Here the Sacrament of Repentance (Healing) plays an important role as one tries to explore specifically whether there is in one’s soul a real awareness of the need for healing — and how this awareness is put into action. An experienced confessor acts like a good doctor. He not only seeks quick relief of symptoms but seeks “wellness” in guiding the repentant’s whole life into change according to the Gospel’s teaching.
In her early history the Church had to decide whether to keep weaker brothers and sisters within the Church. At the end of the Fourth century, as persecution of Christians was waning, the question was raised concerning those who had fallen during the persecutions (Lapsi). The Confessors, who had suffered a great deal, resolved this problem by suggesting that the lapsed be taken back to the Church – but only through repentance. Thus the Church avoided becoming nothing more than a small elite community of ascetics — and at the same time obligated weaker to at least try to do better.
We have a similar situation today. The Church does not abandon its weaker members, but She expects them to try to do better. Thus even within the Church there is always a minority /majority division. For just as in Confessors’ era, those today who have made great spiritual progress, and have become partakers of the Glory of God already in this world, are the most loving and forgiving. Their love for us, who are inferior to them, gently guides us towards the right path.
The Church as an Oppressed Minority in Society
There have been times, however, such as during the Ottoman and Communist eras that oppression shook away the merely formal members of the Church. Church activities were largely reduced to liturgical services — and even that could cause great inconvenience to believers. Christians, of any kind, became a not only a minority, but an ill-treated minority. While personal, private connections within the Church were often strengthened, missionary and diaconal activity necessarily declined.
Modern organizational theory teaches that in a network there should not only be sufficient flexibility, but at the same time, a necessary flow of information between different cells and the center. Flexibility means, for example, sufficient autonomy to act at the local level without constant contact to the center. Steep subordination to a central administration guarantees the flow of information, but it may also shatter the entire network if the network is attacked from the outside. At the same time, fully self-governing groups rarely survive as organizations, because they lack connection to leadership and other branches.
The survival of the Church under Ottoman rule or communist totalitarian states is based on God ’s Providence, which revealed the Church’s optimal model of governance. While each local eucharistic community manifests the fullness of the Church, none of these communities can legitimately function without its connection to the bishop, and to other Churches. Moreover, each parish, however small or oppressed, always affects its surrounding community. As long as the local members of the Church rise up to Mount Tabor and are united to Transfigured Christ in the Eucharist, on a regular basis, the Church will always remain a shining light on the mountain that no-one can miss.
Too close a connection between the Church and the State has caused persecution of minority religions. In general, the background was the State’s concern about political unity, which sometimes led the Church to end up persecuting minorities. Religious intolerance could also be spread by the very same people who had themselves suffered from persecution. The harassed become a harasser — unless the love of Christ could work in people’s hearts. Overall, the earthly power of the Church has been generally proved detrimental. As fire is a good servant but a bad master, so too a powerful Church is tempted to give fire and the sword, not love, the upper hand.
The 20th century Brings Orthodoxy to the West
The 20th century brought much confusion to local Orthodox Churches all over the world. The emergence of the Soviet Union and its aggressive political expansion into many Eastern European countries led to a massive emigration of these peoples into all of Western Europe and the Americas. Orthodox believers found themselves in situations where their environment had little sympathy or understanding to their faith. They faced both prejudice and even social pressure to conform to local religious norms. However, Orthodox parishes were established. And, the Church became for many the only place with a living connection to the old country’s (former) culture and life.
On the positive side, the Orthodox Church gradually became familiar to many Western nations. Ecclesiologically problematic was the strong commitment of these emigrant Churches to the old country’s language and customs. National epithets began to commonly appear in front of the words ‘Orthodox Christian’: hence, Greek-, Russian-, Romanian-, Serbian-, Carpatho–Russian Orthodox. The Church lost an opportunity to be seen as truly universal, as was required by her own vocation. Links with the old country, when possible, were maintained, but they were hampered by political polarization.
The last century was also notable for Orthodox Christians for the emergence of ecumenism within Orthodoxy. Now to be found among other churches and even other religions, the Orthodox were forced to articulate the very substance of their own faith in new languages and new ways. The dialogue began, and it benefited both the local majority churches and the Orthodox Christian minority. In many cases, other Churches were of great help to Orthodox when they are looking for buildings in which to worship and also in other more practical matters.
In this regard, the World Council of Churches and the Conference of European Churches were invaluable links between the Churches. They also provided a forum in which the Orthodox themselves had the opportunity and possibility of meeting each other. As a result the first Pan-Orthodox Conference, to begin planning the long-proposed Great and Holy Synod, was held in Rhodes in 1961 at the invitation of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras. Based on their ecumenical experiences in the WCC, Orthodox youth established SYNDESMOS, the World’s Fellowship of Orthodox Youth in 1953. For decades SYNDESMOS played a pivotal and important role in bringing together Orthodox youth living in both minority and majority situations. After all, it was the only pan-Orthodox organization for decades. SYNDESMOS also invited all Orthodox theological schools to join in 1968, thus enabling the formal involvement of Eastern European Orthodox youth. For it was particularly the youth who felt the urgency of international contacts when living in minority situations — whether in small Orthodox communities in Western Europe, or under oppression in Eastern Europe or the Middle East.
Orthodox Minorities in the West
Living in the minority usually meant economic difficulties as well as religious and social ones. Priests often had to support themselves through another occupation as well. And even when they did not have to take a second job, an Orthodox priest wages were very low. Emigrant communities were often terribly divided by a variety of disputes – political, social and ecclesiological. Ecclesiastical items were difficult to obtain. Even more problematic for Orthodox Christians was the fact that the surrounding society lived in a different rhythm – both in terms of time and culture – than what believers were used to.
And there were other problems: Worship in the language of the old country did not attract crowds except a few linguistic enthusiasts. Social activities were exclusive to “our people”, whichever “people” that may have been. Resources were scarce and potential financial assistance was directed to one’s “own”. Diaconal and missionary work were neglected. On the other hand, the ethos of Diaconia had already been lost in the old country: Communists did not allow diaconal service to society by Churches with the exception of financial support for ”peace work ”.
The situation became radically different after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. Since the 1990s, with freedom to move abroad restored, a new wave of emigration occurred. Many new emigrants left because of financial rather than political reasons. And once again the ecclesiological principle, that a given area can have only one bishop, was forgotten. Dioceses and parishes were once again established on an ethnic basis. When co-operation could have meant strength and a more visible presence for Orthodoxy, our Churches chose division — and thus, ultimately, a minority role once again. Common sense would suggest both North America and Western Europe should have their own autocephalous Orthodox Churches, each of which would have multi-cultural parishes, able to serve their first generation members in their own languages, and later generations in the local language. In this regard, we have departed far from the surrounding reality, and our own ecclesiology.
The Baltic Sea is surrounded by nine states, of which, in religious terms, Lutherans, Catholics and Orthodox predominate. The area is interesting because all these confessions are in the majority at least in one coastal State, and in the minority in more than one. In Poland, the Catholics are in majority whereas in the Nordic countries, Russia and the Baltic states they are a minority. Lutherans are the majority in the Nordic countries, but in Russia, the Baltic states and Poland they are minority. Orthodox believers are in majority in Russia, but in the Nordic countries, the Baltic states and Poland in the minority.
The region’s network of Churches (Theobalt) raised some years ago the majority / minority issue on its agenda. Measures to promote co-operation among the Churches in helping migrant workers and in stopping trafficking in human beings were widely discussed. At the same time, though, it became possible to compare the attitudes of each Church concerning its majority and the minority position. The question was: When in majority position, do we deal with minorities in the same way as we expect others to deal with us when we ourselves are in the minority? This question remains. If we insist on minority rights for our people, but refuse to give those rights to other Christian minorities when we are in the majority, how is this possible, or just?
The Experience of the Orthodox Church in Finland
The Finnish Orthodox Church is a spiritual daughter of the Russian Church. After the Russian Revolution the Finnish Orthodox Church sought recognition, and was received as an autonomous Church under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in 1923. However, The State of Finland, which had become independent in 1917, legally confirmed this position of the Orthodox Church at that same time. An ecclesiastical Seminary was founded in 1918, also with state support. When the Orthodox Church of Finland lost approximately 90% of its property in World War II, the Finnish Parliament enacted a law granting large financial support to the Orthodox Church. As a result, numerous Churches, Parish Halls and cemeteries were built around the country.
Orthodox Christians have always been a small minority in Finland. At present, Finland has a population of almost 5.5 million, of which approximately 60,000 are Orthodox Christians. The constitution grants both the Orthodox and Lutheran (majority) churches full freedom to decide their own affairs. The government supports the Orthodox Church on certain salaries and buildings, as well as to provide necessary support in restoring historical Church buildings. Both the Lutheran and the Orthodox Churches have a right to tax. This Church tax is collected only from members of their respective Churches and the state (as the tax collector) charges the Churches a fair compensation for collecting it. The tax is about 1 % of income.
Churches insist that this tax does not constitute state aid to Churches, rather, it is the Churches levy upon their own members. If a person leaves the Church, he does not pay Church tax any more. Thus the State cannot count on this money as a source of income. Church taxes are paid to the local parishes, which then cover their employees’ salaries, building maintenance etc. The Church tax covers in many Parishes as much as 90% of their expenses.
When the Finnish Orthodox Church adopted the Gregorian (or “new”) Calendar in the 1920s, there were rumors abroad this was done under pressure from the State. It was, however, the Church’s own decision. And, it was blessed by the Ecumenical Patriarch. And whereas the Lutheran Church agreed in 1973, at the State’s request, to move certain ecclesiastical holidays to Saturday, the Orthodox Church never moved those feasts, nor was it required to do so. These feasts were returned to their rightful dates by the Lutheran Church in 1992.
The only case when the State put pressure to the Orthodox Church in Finland was after the Second World War, when the Russian Orthodox Church, at the initiative of the Soviet Government, called on the Orthodox Church in Finland to return to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. Finnish State representatives recommended the transition to appease the Soviets, but Archbishop Herman (Aav) postponed the meeting of the clergy-laity council year after year. As only the clergy-laity council could decide the matter, the situation remained open from 1945 to 1957. The Russian Church finally gave up.
During the 20th century the Finnish Lutheran Church could have made life for the Orthodox really difficult. Immediately after independence, the Lutheran Church did not oppose the state giving the Orthodox Church a specific position as a religious minority. Then again, after World War II, the Lutheran Church did not oppose the Law on reconstruction of the Orthodox property. Lutherans did not act against their Christian sisters and brothers, and thus contributed to the future of the Orthodoxy in Finland. In more recent years, they have shown great sympathy and support for the Orthodox Church, both at the national and local level.
Civilized country like Finland have well understood the principle that minorities always need a bigger share of attention and support than their size would indicate. If the Finnish Orthodox had received only one per cent of the attention of Finnish society, the situation of my Church today would be quite different. In part the state’s attitude reflects the historical fact that Orthodox Christians have been present in Finland for over 1000 years. This historical memory applies to other cultural minorities in Finland as well, including the Swedish-speaking population (Swedish is the second official language in Finland), the Sami people and the Roma. Swedish speakers have their own TV channel in the state broadcast network; the Sami have their own radio channel (which broadcasts in three different Sami languages) and the Roma have radio programs in their own language as well.
The school system is a major supporter of minorities. Orthodox pupils have their own religious instruction, which the schools themselves pay for, if there are a minimum of three Orthodox pupils in the municipality. Orthodox textbooks are published by the state. State radio and TV both broadcast Orthodox liturgies on a regular basis. Orthodox military conscripts are given pastoral care and education by their own clergy. The University of Eastern Finland in Joensuu has a theological department with Orthodox and Western sections. Orthodox theology students do their own liturgical, homiletic and practical exercises at the Joensuu Orthodox Seminary, which the Orthodox Church owns and the state funds. The Seminary has also a dormitory for students and its own chapel.
Orthodox bishops in Finland are in regular contact with Lutheran bishops, leaders of other faiths and civil authorities. Our bishops can thus convey our Church’s position on matters concerning not only the Church, but also on wider societal issues.
For the small Orthodox Church in Finland the situation is good. Relations with the Lutheran Church and the state are both excellent. In many cases the Lutheran Church apparently feels that cooperation with the Orthodox is of importance to them as well. When they invite this small Orthodox Church to the table, they hear not only the Orthodox position, but another Finnish view. In important theological and moral issues the Orthodox Church in Finland does not, of course, have its own policy, but we reflect universal and traditional Orthodox thinking.
Arvola Pekka, Nguyen Riina: Twelve Windows on Orthodoxy in Finland. Publications Committee for Orthodox Literature. 2010.
Osinga Frans P.B.: Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd. Routledge. 2007.
Paul, Archbishop (of Finland): The Faith We Hold. St Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 1980.
Riikonen Juha: Kirkko politiikan syleilyssä. Suomen ortodoksisen arkkipiispakunnan ja Moskovan patriarkaatin välinen kanoninen erimielisyys 1945-1957. Doctoral dissertation. University of Joensuu. 2007. (Резюме: Церковь в объятиях политики : канонические разногласия между Финляндской Православной архиепископией и Московским патриархатом 1945-1957)
Schmemann Alexander: The World in Orthodox Thought and Experience. St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 21.1. 1977.