Orthodoxy & Nationalism

by NICHOLAS SOOY

We denounce, censure, and condemn phyletism, to wit, racial discrimination and nationalistic disputes, rivalries, and dissensions in the Church of Christ, as antithetical to the teaching of the Gospel and the Sacred Canons of our Blessed Fathers . . . ​

1872 Council of Constantinople

One of the biggest contemporary concerns regarding Orthodoxy and tribalism is the relationship between Orthodoxy and nationalism. The nation is itself a kind of tribe. With the rise of global nationalism and populism, and the long-standing problem of nationalism in modern Orthodoxy, nationalism has become a hot topic in Orthodox circles. For example, in his explanation of the 1872 Synod of Constantinople, Metropolitan Ierotheos Vlachos said that “racialism and nationalism are foreign to the tradition of the Orthodox Church.” Meanwhile, here in America, a group of individuals (who have been excommunicated for heresy for violating the 1872 synod) have banded together under the banner of “Orthodox Nationalism.” But what is nationalism, and how should we as Orthodox Christians regard it?

The central point to keep in mind is that in discussions of nationalism, regardless of whether it’s being praised or attacked, it’s about more than mere feelings of affection for one’s country. As with all -isms, nationalism is first and foremost an ideology. It is a system of beliefs about how the world should be organized. Nationalism involves two components: first, a definition of what constitutes the “nation,” and second, a belief that this nation is the most important association in guiding decisions about how to organize society and how to act in the social sphere.

Sometimes the nation is defined in ethnic terms, as with white nationalism. Or, it may be defined in terms of some constructed history. In the United States, for example, nationalist history begins with the first English-speaking colonists, who were here before the colonies were a country, but that history excludes other groups present during that same time period. Thus, the pilgrims are viewed as part of this history, while the Spanish colonization of Florida is not. Other versions define the nation in terms of economic associations, or even civic associations. Once the nation is defined, nationalism is then the belief that this group of people and the association that holds them together is central and should be the foundation for any government or political association.

This ideology is relatively new. In the past, people did not give their first allegiance to some associated group called “the nation.” Rather, it was to a universal Empire (such as in China or Byzantium), or to a feudal prince, a chieftain, or a city. To wit, the word “politics” itself comes from the Greek polis, which means city. For the ancient Greeks (and therefore, to some extent, for the Byzantines), the city was the fundamental unit of political organization, and no one had yet thought of a nation. Once we realize this, we may begin to see why some in the Church have warned against nationalism. By elevating the nation to the basic and most important association, many other associations are relegated to second-class status, such as the family, the Church, one’s local community, or our shared humanity. While different definitions of nationalism might include religion, community, or family as constitutive elements, for every variety of nationalism, the nation is always more important than these other associations.

While nationalism is, historically speaking, a new ideology, Christians have reflected on questions of political loyalty since the time of Christ. Repeatedly, Christian thinkers have warned that whatever loyalties we make on earth, everything is secondary to our fulfillment of the Gospel commands to love God and our neighbor. Thus, Christians should be suspicious of nationalism, not because Christianity is fundamentally opposed to the idea of nations, but because Christians should be suspicious of all ideologies. Christian commitments always take priority over ideological commitments, no matter how good or noble their bases might be. Thus, the Christian response to nationalism should be neither simple acceptance or simple rejection. The Christian position is not that the nation is fundamental, nor that religion or family are more fundamental than nation. While Christians can and should engage with society at all levels, including the national, the fundamental allegiance of Christians is to Christ.

In his homily “On the Statutes,” St. John Chrysostom makes this point when talking about political allegiance:

If you are a Christian, no earthly city is yours . . . ​Though we may gain possession of the whole world, we are but strangers and sojourners in it all. Weare enrolled in heaven: our citizenship is there! Let us not, after the manner of little children, despise things that are great, and admire those which are little! Not our city’s greatness, but the virtue of soul is our ornament and defense. If you suppose dignity to belong to a city, think how many persons must partake in this dignity, who are . . . ​depraved and full of ten thousand evil things, and at last despise such honor! But that City above is not of this kind; for it is impossible that he can be a partaker of it, who has not exhibited every virtue.

Chrysostom argues that our citizenship, our fundamental allegiances, and the foundations of our social action are heavenly. We should not be taken in by blind admiration for our city (or nation), or our compatriots simply because of our national identity. Our city and nation have many flaws; God alone is blameless.

Chrysostom merely echoes a tradition dating back to the earliest Christians. We can see this most clearly in the important Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, dating from around 130. There, Mathetes writes:

Christians are indistinguishable from other people either by nationality, language or customs. They do not inhabit separate cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life… Unlike some other people, they champion no purely human doctrine. With regard to dress, food and manner of life in general, they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be living in, whether it is Greek or foreign.

And yet there is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country . . . ​They pass their days upon earth, but they are citizens of heaven. Obedient to the laws, they yet live on a level that transcends the law. Christians love all people . . . ​

Early Christians thought of themselves as sojourners, wayfarers, refugees even, living in this world. They belong to heaven and are ambassadors of heaven to this world. As such they adapt to wherever they are, but always remain distant. Allegiance to their homeland is less important than the transcendent love which animates them, for the Kingdom of God is their true homeland.

This strange inhabited distance towards associations is not simply an accidental feature of Christian love, but it is essential to it. Christians must be willing to transcend the boundaries and borders of belonging such that they love the “other,” the stranger, the poor, and even their enemies, for it is only in this way that the sin of Adam is overcome. As Metropolitan John Zizioulas has argued:

There is a pathology built into the very roots of our existence, inherited through our birth, and that is the fear of the other. This is a result of the rejection of the Other par excellence, our Creator, by the first man, Adam. The essence of sin is the fear of the Other, which is part of the rejection of God. This results in fear of all otherness. We are not afraid simply of certain others, but even if we accept them, it is on the condition that they are somehow like ourselves . . . When we fear otherness, we identify difference with the division. We divide our lives and human beings according to difference. We organize states, clubs, fraternities, and even Churches on the basis of difference. When difference becomes division, communion is nothing but an arrangement for peaceful co-existence. It lasts only as long as mutual interests last and may easily be turned into confrontation and conflict as soon as these interests cease to coincide.

Similarity is not the true foundation of Christian love, for similarity rejects the other as an another, and demands conformity. Ultimately such love is only a form of self-love. True Christian love accepts all associations but recognizes that we must be distant from them to have the true love for all the Children of Adam, for all the icons of God in this world. With this in mind, it should be clear that the problem with nationalism is not nationalism as such, or the idea of a nation. The problem is that Christians cannot simply identify with any ideology or association as the foundation of our social life. The Christian response to nationalism is not to say that there is some better system, that nation is the wrong (or the right) thing on which to base our society. The Christian instead should realize that whatever society is based on, Christian allegiances will always come first.

Unfortunately, Orthodox Christians have not always lived up to this central teaching of the faith. Whether it has been loyalty to Byzantium, Imperial Russia, Hellenism, Arabic civil nationalism, or Balkan forms of nationalism, Orthodox Christians have often been swept up in ideologies that have overtaken our fundamental Christian loyalties. It was precisely this problem which led to the Synod of 1872. Be that as it may, Orthodox Christianity, especially in the so-called “diaspora” in the “west,” is in a unique position to fully live up to the Christian witness. As a predominantly immigrant Church in America, Orthodox Christians truly have been given renewed identity as strangers in a strange land. As such, the Church is at a critical juncture. If we ghettoize ourselves along nationalistic lines, whether Greek, Slavic, Arabic, or even American, we risk obsolescence. Demographic shifts and waning political tides will prove these national struggles irrelevant in the long view of history. If, however, we live up to the prophetic witness of Christian loyalty, then we have the potential to become leaders in society, helping the modern world move past the excesses of modern nationalism.

Nicholas Sooy is a PhD candidate in philosophy at the University of Fordham and the director of the NorthAmerican branch of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship. He is a parishioner at St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church in New York City.