organisms, borders preserve the conditions that are necessary to sustain life. With that in mind, we might imagine that impenetrable borders are best, because they can shield organisms from hostile outside forces. This assumption falls short, however. Living organisms, whether they be single cells or human communities, often require resources that come only from outside themselves. In such cases, a degree of permeability is essential. Further, an organism’s purpose and function might include more than just its own survival. It might be part of a larger biological system, in which it sustains and nourishes other organisms. When an organism's reason for existence does not end with itself, an exaggerated emphasis on its own self-preservation can backfire, because it deprives its ecosystem of the health necessary not only for the ecosystem but for the organism’s own survival. On all levels, from the microbiological to the human, an organism’s health depends on balanced coexistence with its environment. For this reason, the World Health Organization, in developing its quality-of-life index, takes into consideration environmental factors, including “noise, pollution, climate, and general aesthetic of the environment,” recognizing that “in some cultures certain aspects of the environment may have a very particular bearing on quality of life, such as the central nature of the availability of water or air pollution.”1 While a review of borders in the contexts of relationships and biology confirms their dynamic quality, we might wonder whether it has any relevance for Orthodoxy’s borders. It might even seem impertinent to suggest the Church can benefit from our reflection on Her borders at all—because, as the nineteenth-century Russian theologian Alexei
Khomiakov said in The Church is One, “Christ, her Preserver and Head, does not change,” and, “the Church and her members know, by the inward knowledge of faith, the unity and unchangeableness of her spirit, which is the spirit of God.”2 A look at Church history, though, including the vigorous debates that attended the Seven Ecumenical Councils—whose declarations the Church celebrates as nothing less than “the faith which has established the universe”3— ought to persuade us of the role that human consideration plays in the shaping of spiritual unity and its contours. It should not surprise us that factors important to personal boundaries hold relevance for the Church because she is, Herself, a relational being. As in our personal relationships, the uncertainty we sometimes have about Orthodoxy’s boundaries may correspond with insufficient reflection on the Church’s nature and Her needs. Like someone only guessing at how to care for the iguana, we assert boundaries that, perhaps more often than necessary, contribute to misunderstanding and hurt. Fruitful discussion of the Church’s boundaries occurs only in tandem with thoughtful reflection on Her theology and mission. In addition to being a relational being, the Church is also a living organism. For this reason, knowing how borders function biologically can help us consider how borders serve the Church’s health. If we become too inwardly focused, oriented solely towards ecclesiastical self-preservation—constantly defining Orthodoxy against other forms of Christianity, for instance—we risk overlooking the degree to which our very reason for being, as Orthodox Christians, includes the salvation and wellbeing of the world outside. We may unduly emphasize the impermeability of our borders,
1. World Health Organization. PROGRAMME ON MENTAL HEALTH WHOQOL User Manual, March 1, 2012, p. 66. https:// www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-HIS-HSI-Rev.2012.03 2. Khomiakov, Alexei. The Church is One: Essay on the Unity of the Church. https://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/325/texts/ Khomiakov/Khomiakov%20The%20Church%20is%20One.htm 3. From the Synodikon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. 27
jacob's well
