Could getting rid of a common spoon open the door to transforming the Orthodox Christian Faith?
Recently, His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros (Lambriniadis), various Orthodox academics, some archons, and a few priests have all emphatically stated that the reception of communion via a common spoon has to change. An example of this is Father Calivas in his article called A Note on the Communion Spoon, Father Calivas concluded the following:
A change in the manner by which Communion is distributed to the people is unavoidable. It is already happening…In any event, the change is coming. It is important, therefore, that everyone – clergy and people alike – are properly prepared.
Responding to all this was a Greek MD, Dr. Irene Polidoulis, whose two responses can be seen here and here.
In her first response, Dr. Poulidas said something that really got us thinking. As Orthodox Christians, we have lived through horrible plagues in our long history, and in recent memory such serious diseases as HIV, H1N1, SARS, MERS, horrible flu seasons, etc. So why is the common spoon suddenly an issue – now?
It is especially strange because there is no consensus in favor of a change, even among Greek hierarchs in America. His Eminence Metropolitan Alexios of Atlanta has been clear in opposing any change to the use of a common spoon, and has answered Father Calivas directly.
With all that is going on in the United States, why is the spoon suddenly of such concern?
One reason might be connected to a conversation we remembered from years ago between a contributor and an Orthodox academic named Inga Leonova on the subject of same-sex marriage. Part of that exchange is below:
Yes, we are both Orthodox, and I may shock you even further by admitting to holding a position within the Church governance structure. Sexuality is an inherent part of a person’s biological makeup same as race. The early Church did not know that, and moreover, the early Church has dealt with matters of behavior, not identity. The Church has the authority to change most things except the key Trinitarian and Christological doctrine if it is pleasing to the Spirit. The Liturgy has been revised many times over the centuries; the canons of the Church are getting revised; things change! I refuse to acknowledge that we are dead because then we are worshiping Christ in the Tomb, not the resurrected Christ, and I do not worship a dead and buried God, nor do I worship the Law.
The key takeaways from that interaction of almost 10 years ago would be:
- There is a core of Orthodox dogma that is fixed and unchanging. That is off limits to discussion.
- The church has wide latitude to change pretty much everything else, as doctrine can develop over time.
- Church customs and traditions are not sacrosanct simply because they are old. Prior changes in liturgical and sacramental practices prove change is possible.
- Changes in Church customs / traditions can be pleasing to, and guided by, the Holy Spirit and do not detract from the Faith.
- The church has an obligation to listen to scientific advancements and respond accordingly.
Fast forward to today, below is a quote from author Aristotle Papanikolaou writing about A Theology of the Erotic:
For the Church, actions were never labeled with the adjectives of “Orthodox” or “heretical,” only beliefs centered around the Trinity or the person of Christ (the dogma on the icon is an extension of the debate on the person of Christ). As St. Basil argues in his “Letter to Amphilochius, Concerning the Canons,” “by heresies they meant those who were altogether broken off and alienated in matters relating to the actual faith” (Letter 188). The dogmatic proclamations of the Council were always separate from the canonical proclamations. Morality was codified in the canons of the Church. Yes—there must be a consistency between theology and ethics, between dogma and canons, but while dogmas are non-negotiable, canons are part of the ongoing discernment of the Church.
What does all this mean for the experience of homoerotic desire? First, even though the authoritative sources weigh heavily toward condemning homoerotic sex acts of a particular kind, I have argued that ethical norms, rules, and practices, codified mostly in the canons of the Church, are discussable in a process of ongoing discernment.
Papanikolaou is the Archbishop Demetrios Chair in Orthodox Theology and Culture and the Co-Director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center of Fordham University.
Notice the similar approach to the one highlighted almost 10 years ago. The author separates core “dogmas” from canons / customs, and emphasizes that anything outside “core” dogmas can change through a process of “discernment.” This is a very narrow view of heresy, one focused on only certain key doctrines. The rest is up for debate.
On the same official Website of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center, we find this discussion of Same-sex behavior and genetics:
We need to consider, as Church, new questions that were not discussed until recently. In relation to sexuality, this will invite us to ask how far we should go in expecting people to ignore genetic inclinations? Are human beings just about evolution (reproduction is the only real driver of evolution) or are we also about relationship and communion? Have we articulated a theology to deal with same-sex behaviors? As in science, so in theology: there is much work to be done.
The Orthodox Church is, of course, not anti-science. Therefore, according to the thinking represented in the quote above, the Church should learn from science and continuously evaluate her non-dogmatic, traditional practices in light of new knowledge and experience.
Now let us compare the above examples to the following article from the Orthodox Observer which argues for multiple spoons at communion:
Holy Tradition is one thing; long-held Church customs are another. The former is divine in origin, Apostolic and unchangeable; the latter varies throughout time and place in response to varying human considerations. Those who fail to distinguish Holy Tradition from temporal traditions introduce confusion into the Faith, inviting rancor and even schism.
Whether intentional or not, many of the arguments put forward for changing the method of communion echo those put forward in support of other changes to the Orthodox Faith. According to this line of thinking, the spoon is a custom, getting rid of it does not change the faith because none of the key dogmas are at stake. From this point of view, not only can communion change but, scientifically, it must change to keep us safe from Corona Virus.
Why is this happening now? Possibly because over the last 10 plus years, a movement to substantially transform Orthodoxy has matured and now sees this as an opportunity. How do you prove that an institution most noted for constancy of belief and practice can change with the times?
One way would be to find something you can change, change it, and then explain that change on the basis of “science.”
Given the fear over Corona Virus, the spoon probably looks like a vulnerability that can be exploited to create a recent precedent. Does this mean that everyone endorsing changes to communion is on board with transforming the faith? Not at all. But it is very clear that a movement exists within and around Orthodoxy that is dedicated to such a goal, and many within that movement are also arguing for changes to communion.
We are certain that if the Orthodox Church gives in on the spoon, then more changes will be demanded. We provided same-sex marriage examples above, but the framework of separating dogma from “canons” can be used for a whole range of teaching. An example of how this could work on a different topic is below:
Female ordination is an idea whose time has come. The discipline of ordaining only men is based on outmoded cultural stereotypes and prejudice. Gender roles have varied over time in different cultures. Gender is a social construct, as reaffirmed by the modern understanding of gender identity. Modern science indicates that there are no essential differences between men and women. In fact, the sexual binary is itself an outmoded framework. The sacraments of the Church will be just as valid if administered by a man or a woman. The faith will not be changed as no essential dogmas are at stake. There is no theological barrier to women’s ordination.
That is a compilation and paraphrasing of actual arguments in favor ordaining women to the Orthodox priesthood. As the book image indicates, there are scholars putting forward similar and additional arguments right now, some of whom are bishops and priests in the Orthodox Church. (In all fairness, I am sure they can argue their points better than I did above.)
Any Orthodox teaching or practice that is not absolutely, explicitly, dogmatically stated, regardless of its antiquity, could be subjected to this treatment. As one writer stated when arguing for the salvation of all, and against the belief in eternal damnation:
A belief does not merit unconditional reverence just because it is old, nor should it be immune to being challenged in terms commensurate to the scandal it seems to pose.
Just because it is a long-standing belief does not make it right or protect it from being changed. After all, generations of Orthodox Christians could have been wrong or scientifically ignorant, or both.
Perhaps the existence of that attitude among Orthodox scholars should give us pause before accepting any changes being put forward as “essential” at this time.
The situation is made even more delicate because of the Supreme Court incorporating sexual orientation and gender identity into non-discrimination law. Father Robert Arida used the legalization of same-sex marriage as a basis for questioning how the church should respond to civilly married homosexuals, particularly those with children. During the recent church closures (in some places still ongoing) the faithful were advised to submit to secular authorities on the basis of biblical passages such as Romans 13: 1-2. Could even members of the Orthodox Church herself seek to use secular laws to make changes in Orthodox Faith and Practice in the future? And if we accept the replacement of the common spoon on the basis of health concerns, do we make that more likely to happen?
Regardless of the purity of the motives of anyone advocating for a change to Holy Communion, we think embracing any change at this moment is perilous for the future of the faith. There is a visible movement within Orthodoxy that wishes to transform the faith into a form which is unrecognizable to us. Caution and continuity, as espoused already by certain Greek Bishops, should be the order of the day. The spoon has to stay.
