hriscanska bioetika

8/6/2019 hriscanska bioetika

1/25

Christian Bioethics1995, Vol. 1,No.2, pp. 128-152

Orthodox Christian BioethicsFr. George EberlDirector, The St. Anne Institute

ABSTRACT

1380-3603/95/0102-0128$6.00 Swets & Zeitlinger

We cannot ignore the multitude of differences in Christian doctrines. There are more andmore divisions and autogenetic beginnings. In talking about religion, we cannot ignorethese differences, especially when we are trying to help the seeker. Neither can we ignorethese differences when we talk about medical ethics. Care demands that we address bothreligious and medical issues. We must not, however, attempt to formulate a new religiousbioethics in the context of any failure to address the differences and similarities as therecord of Christian history reveals. History can reveal to us many things we may not knowabout ourselves as Christian. Understanding our Christian heritage is essential in order tounderstand our approach to any Christian bioethic. This essay will look at Christianhistory to articulate the differences in Orthodox and non-Orthodox formation. Primaryfocus will be on the Great Schism and the value of natural law theology in the development of Christian bioethics. Reference will be made to end-of-life decision making toclarify the issues.

I. THE INCOMMENSURABILITY OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIANAND NON-ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN BIOETHICSThe Orthodox Christian approach to bioethics and health care policy isstrikingly different from that of Western Christianity. It focuses neitheron natural law nor on scriptural quotations. I t is not a body of rules orregulations or set of proscriptions. Orthodox Christian bioethics is, however, integral to a life lived by married Christians or by celibate Christians in monastic dedication and liturgical worship. Orthodox Christianbioethics invites those challenged by health care policy to step into thecommunity of liturgical worship wherein bioethics is seen as a way toholiness.In simple terms, Orthodox Christian bioethics takes for granted thatCorrespondence: Fr. George Eber, The St. Anne Institute, 550 Columbia Avenue, Tulsa,OK 74104, U.S.A.

atUniversityLibrarySvetozarMarkoviconMay12,2011

cb.oxfordjournals.org

Downloadedfrom
http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/


2/25

ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN BIOETHICS 129one has accepted a set of directives based on the revelation deposited withthe Apostles and preserved by the Fathers.? One does not, therefore, doabortions, aid in assisted suicide, or practice euthanasia. These commandments result from the divinity manifest in the faithful through worship.Consequently, when the Orthodox are asked how they come to terms witha bioethical challenge, they defer to a life of holiness manifest in prayerful participation in the liturgical life." Surely, doing abortions, assistedsuicides, or euthanizing are incompatible with a life, of holiness. Yet,while it is one thing to say holiness is not a simple set of rules to befollowed, it is another to say how holiness is acquired (a holiness that bynature both knows and does what the commandments describe). Thereinlies the key to bioethical awareness and fulfillment, the union of the willand action between God and man: "thy will be done on earth as it is inheaven" (Lord's Prayer).

While Orthodox Christian bioethics answers particular bioethical questions with an invitation to enter into the liturgical life of the Church andHer mysteries, the bioethics of Roman Catholicism and various Protestant religions tends to respond with a list of rules." Orthodox bioethics isalways properly a road back into the revealed undertaking of a Christianlife. As a result, it does not provide isolated rules that are supposed to besatisfactorily applied outside the life of the Orthodox Christian. The nonOrthodox who seek guidance can surely be told not to perform abortions,commit suicide, or aid in euthanasia. But they must be told that honoringof such proscriptions is difficult and insufficient (Romans 8). One mustalso convert and become an Orthodox Christian. Only then will thoseproscriptions be part of a bioethics that is in reality the holy life of thedivine-human body of Christ found on earth, the Holy Church.

This difference in approaches to bioethics that separates the Orthodoxfrom the non-Orthodox Christian is the result of a thousand years ofgrowing apart, during which the various Western Christian religions tookon characteristics different from their own Christian roots. When onelooks back into the first millennium, one finds a common Christianity inboth the West and the East, a common understanding of the Christian lifeof holiness.l Because of these common roots, many Christian religionsemploy similar terms, though they have now taken on quite differentmeanings as new doctrines were developed, thus separating many contemporary Christians from the faith of the Apostles and Fathers. Oneimportance of a non-ecumenical approach to Christian bioethics lies precisely in the task of seeing the important differences hidden in superficialsimilarities.This essay will outline the origins of the differences among the Chris-



Downloadedfrom


3/25

130 FR. GEORGE EBER

tian religions and their implications for Christian bioethics. The goal willbe to show how the differences that separate the Christian religions separate Orthodox Christian from non-Orthodox Christian bioethics. The account of the development of these differences will be the task of the nexttwo sections of this essay. The fourth and fifth sections will focus on thedistinctive character of an Orthodox Christian bioethics. The sixth section then studies by way of illustration, the Orthodox Christian approachto death and dying.

II. THE EMERGENCE OF TWO CHRISTIANITIESTwo characteristic periods identify Orthodox Christian and non-Orthodox Christian history, the almost eleven hundred years before the GreatSchism and the nine hundred years since. Persecutions and theologicalstruggles characterized the growth of Christianity before the Schism. WhileValerius Galerius in 311 and the Emperor Constantine in 313 freed theone unified Church from persecutions, the Seven Ecumenical Councilsassembled to resolve disputes and maintain unity. Yet, old troublesreemerged and new troubles emerged, and continued for two hundredyears preceding the 1054 Schism within the then existing unified Churchof the Seven Councils. The Schism resulted in two Christianities. ThatSchism now divides Orthodox Christianity and non-Orthodox Christianity as well as the bioethics that emerges from each group. In fact, theincommensurability of their bioethics is an epiphany of the many andoften conflicting understandings of theology and ecclesiology. The ethicsand bioethics found in today's various Christian confessions and experienced in different views of reproduction, suffering and death reflect thisearly and great Schism. The multitude of these conflicting approaches tomajor passages of life underlie the importance of the non-ecumenicalnature of Christian Bioethics. The differences that separate the variousChristian faiths and bioethics continue to address matters of enduringimportance.The dissimilarity among these many existing (and schismatically selfjustified) Christian churches makes it difficult for Christians to speaksubstantively among themselves. "Christianity" is now, more than ever,

difficult to define. Conversations between competing confessions oftenbreak down after a necessary and somewhat meaningless and insignificant confession that Jesus Christ is Lord." A shallowness in inter-Christian communication reflects not only an inability to articulate differencesclearly, but also the lack of clarity regarding the historical identity of



Downloadedfrom


4/25

ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN BIOETHICS 131

Christianity. As Orthodox Christians we often find it difficult to expressour commitments to other Christians because we understand similar termsdifferently from them. Trinity, grace and church have quite different meanings for the Orthodox and non-Orthodox. This problem of similar termshiding differences is evident as well in discussions in bioethics. Not onlyare there real differences in the ways in which ethics and virtue are understood, there is much disagreement regarding what is at stake in the bioethics of reproduction and of death. For instance, we are not in agreementabout the meaning of the "good death." Consequently, we must recognizethat which separates us in order not to fail to recognize different understandings hidden in seeming agreement on terms.The term "catholic church" can help to introduce some of the fundamental differences between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christian bioethics."Catholic Church" was first recorded by St. Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 100AD) who wrote: "[w]herever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church"(Ignatius, p. 261). Catholic and church were always used together toproclaim the fullness and the universality of salvation revealed in Christwithin the Church (Meyendorff, 1983, p. 7). The early Christian communities in Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria and Rome evidenced a oneness and unity with Christ and the Apostles in theory andpractice. They maintained, individually and in union the "one, holy catholic and apostolic" nature of Christianity.7 Difficulties arose when different understandings of theology, ecclesiology and spirituality emerged."Catholic" mutated to "catholicity" when other "catholics" separated fromthe original "oneness" and "wholeness" of the presence of Christ. Professor John Meyendorff (1983, p. 8), continues:[t]hese were the "heretics" (splitters of the truth) or the "schismatics"(dividers of the community). So, gradually, the term "catholic" wasused as an equivalent of "orthodoxy," which designated the holders of"right opinions," who rightly glorified the God within the unity andholiness of the Spirit and in conformity with the original apostolicfaith.

The term "Orthodox Catholic Church" came to identify the community inwhich the fulness of salvation was and continues to be revealed andsteadfastly maintained in spite of the schismatics.fThe original "catholic church" community was shattered with the GreatSchism. With the two emerging Christianities carne a different understanding of "catholic." "Catholic Church" identified for many those inRome, who, once in unity, had adopted differing opinions. "Orthodox



Downloadedfrom


5/25

132 FR. GEORGE EBER

Catholic Church" referred to the Sees who retained the original teachings.Those who changed suffered a corruption of salvific wholeness. The significance of the Great Schism lies in the corruption of the "salvific wholeness." Salvation is sacrificed when one separates from the orthodoxy ofthe Apostolic Church.

Characteristically, the wholeness of the Orthodox Catholic Church wasexpressed in the interdependence of doctrine and worship. Doctrines bothexpressed and protected divine life. The central doctrines of the Trinityand two natures of Christ as affirmed in the Seven Ecumenical Councilsproperly articulated the nature of the Orthodox Catholic Church (the CatholicChurch before the Schism) and its wholeness. When doctrine is corrupted, changes in worship soon followed. These changes are evidence of thedeath that comes with the breaking of "wholeness." Today's OrthodoxChristians identify themselves as the early "Catholic Church" now rightlycalled the "Orthodox Catholic Church." They proclaim themselves as that"one holy, catholic and apostolic church" (Antiochian Archdiocese p.10).9 They see themselves as "the people" of God bound together in aNew Covenant. They are a continuation and fulfillment of the originalOld Covenant. Like those of the Old Covenant, the Orthodox CatholicChurch saw and sees itself as a people called out in response to a deitywho intervenes and, as the "kahal," remains united to the saving "wholeness."The Orthodox Catholic Church was and is "a people" who respond, nota people who create. 10 The idea of "creating a church" is far from Orthodox Catholic thinking. One can only join what Christ has begun. Thatwhich Christ gave is that which they join. That which they join is thecommunity begun in the Old Covenant and fulfilled in the New. I t is acommunity based not on isolated moral principles, but on an ontologicaland organic divine-human communion. The early Christian communitiesof Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and their children inEastern Europe (Russian, Rumanians, Bulgarians, etc.) are the continuation of this early "catholic church." Orthodoxies in America emergedwhen immigrating Orthodox Christians from these ancient Sees carriedthe faith from Greece, Russia and the Middle East to the New World.They all share the same "wholeness" and rightly call themselves the "catholicchurch." The Great Schism do.es not void the "wholeness" of these remaining Orthodox Catholic Sees. Their teachings are the same now asthey were in the first thousand years. We acknowledge these two-thousand-year-old Sees and the newer Sees that are in union with belief andworship, as the Orthodox Catholic Church." 11 Absent from these originalfive Sees that comprised the orthodox catholic church are those of Rome



Downloadedfrom


6/25


and her Protestant children. This absence points to the Schism in theoriginal "Catholic Church," which is the epiphany of the incommensurability of Orthodox theology and bioethics with non-Orthodox Christianity's theology and bioethics.'?

The "wholeness" retained in the Orthodox Catholic Church is salvificholiness, and the cornerstone of Orthodox bioethics. It is a holiness beyond intellectual conceptualization and moral response. Though intellectual distinctions and arguments are important for the Orthodox moral life,they, for the most part, function as warnings regarding what not to do,regarding how not to live, regarding how not to be. They show limits thatare real and heuristic. They are invitations to make a choice, for a metanoia to convert and to participate in the life of the Church. Conceiving ofbioethics within the context of salvific holiness is in great measure exoticfor many in the West who have trouble moving beyond a bioethics ofrules and principles to a bioethics of holiness and virtue. Orthodox bioethicsis properly part of a life of holiness, an intimacy between the divine andhuman natures. To see bioethics in these terms is to articulate the issuesfirst and foremost within a way of life rather than within set discoursesand considerations. In this respect, Orthodox bioethics contrasts with thenatural law bioethics of the Roman Catholics. The Orthodox approachcontinues to stand in contrast even with attempts on the part of RomanCatholics to revise their theological approaches in the light of the postVatican II crisis of Roman theology. Walter Kasper, for example, observes: "[i]f Catholic theology is to survive at all, it has to free itselfcompletely from the fetters of the neo-scholastic system." But he thenproceeds to endorse the Ttibingen Catholic school and to see as integral toit the view that "theology must be scholarly, or scientific" (Kasper, p. 5).Orthodox Christian theology is not the product of scientific or scholarlyactivity; it is ultimately a liturgical theology. This is a crucial, indeedessential difference that divides radically the bioethics of Roman Catholics and that of the Orthodox, even after Vatican II.To advance this case, we turn now to exploring the nature of the gulfbetween the bioethics of the Orthodox Catholic Church and the bioethicsof the separated Catholic Church of the West by exploring the differenttheologies that separate these religions. This gulf reflects radically different understandings of ethics. The difference between Orthodox Catholicbioethics and usual Western reflections regarding bioethics turns on issues so foreign to Western moral reflections that Westernized Orthodoxbioethicists at times obscure the force and significance ofOrthodox bioethicsby using language that unwittingly casts their points in false terms. Asthis essay shows, Orthodox bioethics is not to be found through a philo-



Downloadedfrom


7/25

134 FR. GEORGE EBER

sophical exploration of natural law but through the mysteries that fundthe Orthodox Christian divine-human relationship. Orthodox Christianbioethics is in its essence liturgically and sacramentally focused on holiness rather than on rules.This difference between the Orthodox Christian Church and the other

Christian religions is subtle and crucial, but repeatedly misunderstoodand overlooked. Even the best of Western theologians and philosophersseem to pass by it unnoticed. All the philosophizing of the Fathers is notnecessarily integral to the theology of the Orthodox. The crucial divide isbetween pursuit of discursive knowledge and virtue verses a pursuit ofholiness. This divide separates much of the philosophizing of many whoare Fathers of the Church from their theologizing as Fathers. Here is thecrucial divide between the Western academic appreciation of theologyand the liturgical theologizing of the Orthodox. Here, too, lies the subtlebut important difference between Orthodox bioethics and the bioethics ofthe various Western Christian religions.

III. THE GREAT SCHISM AND DIFFERENT CHRISTIANBIOETHICS

In separating from Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalemin the East, the See of Rome affirmed innovative doctrine. By the 9thcentury the Church in the West had changed its understanding ofGod (byadding the filioque), its understanding of ecclesiology (e.g., by claiminguniversal papal jurisdiction) and its understanding of marriage and thepriesthood (e.g., by forbidding married men from becoming priests). Other differences in discipline and spirituality had emerged as well. Buildingon a new understanding of the Petrine Promise and the filioque, Christians in Rome attempted to assert their authority over all the Sees. Suchwas the case when Pope Nicholas refused in 861 to reject the filioque orto recognize Saint Photius as Patriarch of Constantinople (Nicozisin, p.57f). The Great Schism was the consummation of a theological, spiritual,and ecclesiastical separation that had already taken substance centuriesbeforehand. Two different "catholics," the Orthodox Catholic Church ofthe East and the separated Catholics in Rome constitute this separation tothis day.From 1054 the Orthodox Catholic Church and Rome continued in different directions. Though they pursued reconciliation, they never achievedit. The social, political, and theological differences had grown too deep.Still, the attempt at reunion in 1204 during the bloody Fourth Crusade



Downloadedfrom


8/25

ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN BIOETHICS 135was more coercive than consensual. The East, to secure military help andprotection against invasion, undertook the Unions of Lyons in 1274 andthe Council of Florence in 1438. Rome was willing to provide support ifthe East submitted to its authority and accepted its new doctrines. Againstall odds at Florence, St. Mark of Ephesus resisted such false union. Thedeath knell of Rome's attempt to fashion a union was when Pope Eugenius IV recognized St. Mark's brave refusal to agree with the new doctrines of the West. "I f Mark has not signed, we have accomplished nothing" (Nicozisin, p. 70)! St. Mark understood that one cannot belittle theological differences even to preserve the Empire.By the fourteenth century the differences had widened further and theSchism had taken on further substance. The struggles ofGregory Palamas

(1296-1359) reflected the increasing force of the differences regardingreason and grace (Meyendorff, 1964, p. 120f), differences that wouldhave significant implications for bioethics. Palamas, in contending withBarlaam's dogmatic relativism, was able to preserve the Orthodox Catholic Church teaching on grace as the uncreated energies of God. Barlaam,building on the spirit of the Renaissance and Hellenism, considered theprofane philosophers as "enlightened by God." In so doing, he reducedgrace to a natural gift. Barlaam equated secular philosophical ideas withthose of the Fathers. Palamas countered by arguing that the philosophy ofthe natural order does not bring us face to face with God. What he opposes is the idea that knowledge of God (and ultimately salvation) is available through reasoning in the natural order. The dispute was an argumentover the nature and significance of grace. Palamas argued that grace wasthe uncreated reality of the divine that could not be found in a worldseparated from the divine by the fall. An appeal to a natural law theologyor reason would not serve as a substitute. Palamas was resisting the reduction of the Christian faith to the profane which can lead to loss ofsalvation. At stake were different understandings of what it was to knowabout morality and the moral requirements of God. These differences, aswe will see, support quite different bioethics. Here it is enough to observethat these differences form substantially different understandings of themoral life. In particular, these differences were integral to the growinginterest in a philosophically grounded natural law theology which waspart of a moral understanding that deprived the separated Western churchand Western culture of the Christianity of the Orthodox Catholic appreciation of the moral life and bioethics as a life of holiness. These developments exacerbated the already fragmented and legalistic character ofWestern ethics and bioethics.

I f Barlaam had been correct, there would be no need for sacraments as



Downloadedfrom


9/25

136 FR. GEORGE EBER

the Orthodox Catholic Church understood and understands them. Christian bioethics would not be founded on the holiness manifest from withinthe worshiping community. Any appeal to an intellectual argument wouldbe sufficient to show people how to live. This would change the role ofthe Orthodox Catholic Church from that of providing "salvific wholeness" to one of being a commentator upon independent intellectual andacademic pursuits underlying bioethics. Actually, "any church" couldcomment as far as it produced reflections on natural law. The uniqueability of a specific community to provide the "wholeness of salvation"would be lost and forgotten in the change of primary accent from that ofthe worshiping community to that of the academy. The church, or for thatmatter any well group (educated or not - religious or not), could thenpeddle salvation (given the premise that grace was naturally inherent inreason) through self-authenticating claims of enlightenment. Philosophical reflection could show how people should live. Bioethics could be amere scholastic or discursive undertaking open fully to all without grace.Subsequent scholastic and reformed theologies and the contemporary character of bioethics reflect these aspirations.

The legacy of the Great Schism is the proliferation of many competinggroups arguing to establish "their own way" - "their own bioethics."Some are founded on the assumption of new revelations, others on theabilities to reestablish true Christianity through reformation after centuries of its universal loss or corruption, others on the ability through reason to develop new doctrines. The common denominator of novelty ineach of the phenomena contradicts the idea that Christ, who is the sameyesterday, has established the incarnate divine-human community, todayand forever; with the promise that the worshiping community can experience salvific wholeness. Instead, innovative and creative theologies aredeveloped as the basis for new ecclesiologies and bioethics. The wholeconcept that a new idea is needed is alien to the early Orthodox CatholicChurch. Orthodox always addressed new problems with revaluation. Instead of creative theology or bioethics Orthodox Catholic Christianityoffers the theology and bioethics of the Apostles and the Fathers. TheOrthodox Catholic Church offers a liturgical bioethics because its knowledge of God and morality is knowledge founded in the transfiguring lifeof worship. In contrast, Catholic Rome offers a scholastic and natural lawbioethics and the Protestants a scriptural bioethics. The Roman optionbecame a model for others, even in the end for secular and many Protestant bioethicists. Presented with the choice between Christian mystery orsecular reason many have chosen and continue to choose secular reason.Autogenetic and self-authenticating communities have followed the lure



Downloadedfrom


10/25

ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN BIOETHICS 137of discovering moral reason without grace. They have sought to knowabout good and evil, and to be like God, apart from the energies ofGod. 13The result has been disconnection from the original Orthodox Catholicfoundations for bioethics, where, when asked for an answer to bioethicalquestions, they hear again the Orthodox Christian response, "taste andsee." 14 In embracing secular reason much of Christian bioethical approacheshave stepped back from the liturgical mysteries wherein creation, andsubsequent insight and ability, is restored through communion with thedivine. IS

IV. ORTHODOX BIOETHICS IS NOT FOUNDED ONTHE NATURAL LAWBecause moral knowledge cannot be separated from true worship, anappeal to a natural law theology cannot restore the breach between Godand man, and man and cosmos. Neither can a natural law theology provide the foundation for Orthodox bioethics. Although the Orthodox theologians Stanley Harakas and Vigen Guroian point to a natural law element (or foundation) in Orthodox thinking and theology; we must temperany attempt to find any Orthodox Christian dependence on natural lawtheology and place their observations in context. Harakas speaks of a"universal moral standing, a natural moral law" as a directing componentcommon to our shared humanity (Harakas, p. 14). Guroian suggests thatthe eternal law is "imprinted in the rational creature as the natural law"(Guroian, p. 21). The natural law, however, cannot be known apart fromresponding with all our life to God in the mysteries. No moral order isobjective and real apart from divine-human relationship found in themysteries. The natural law and moral order can only be known throughunion with God. When Gregory Palamas argues against the view that onecan know God through a philosophical examination of the natural orderhe appeals to the mysteries, especially baptism, as establishing communion with God. "From these two acts (Baptism and Eucharist) depends ourentire salvation, for in them they review the whole of the divine-humaneconomy" (Meyendorff, 1964, p. 160). All knowledge will be inaccurateand misguided the more one is separated from the natural law.The law of the Old Covenant was given because of our need for correction. Mankind was not "naturally" doing God's will nor did he know thelaw apart from God. The law was to teach of sin and incite repentance.What was unfulfilled "in" any natural law was unfulfilled "with" thenatural law. The natural law did not keep us from sin (Chrysostom, Hom-



Downloadedfrom


11/25

138 FR. GEORGE EBER

ilies on Romans, p. 375), much less was sin abolished with the writtenlaw. As Chrysostom points out, neither by law nor conscience was manfreed (Homilies on Romans, p. 430). Even the law of Moses does not giveus accurate knowledge (Homilies on Romans, p. 423). Finally, and mostimportantly, even if the natural law provided a reliable witness to thegood, it could not break the bonds of death. It is the curse of the law towhich the mystery of the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christspeak (Antiochian Archdiocese, p. 11). The law tells us how mired we arein the clutches of death. The written law reminded us of what any naturallaw fails to produce. I t pointed to the need for God's intervention (Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, p. 375). In short, the moral law can not beknown by examining nature without first knowing God. Moreover, if onecould know the moral law without turning to God, such moral law wouldnot suffice to guide the moral self.Appeals to the natural law are dangerous. They jeopardize the salvific

life of the mysteries found in the community by reducing the mysteries toa secondary or optional role in salvation. If one could know God througha philosophical study of nature and without opening one's heart to theenergies of God, one could realize salvation and ethics in ideas of selfactualization and self-empowerment. Guroian's use of the "rational creature" could suggest that the rational element transcends the fall and holdsthe key to ethical development. However, neither reason nor any naturallaw it might try to establish can bring us salvation. Since St. John Chrysostom tells us it is not out of ignorance that we sin (Homilies on Romansp. 428), being smarter may not help. Neither does reason have the powerto envision the good. These comments remind us once again, that salvation is through deification, not through discursive reasoning over anynatural or written law.!"

Guroian's references to Romans and the Spirit seem to appropriate thework of the Spirit. He adds to the text "the Law of the Spirit," the phrase"speaks to the heart." Yet the text says "in Christ Jesus." What does itmean to be "in Christ Jesus" if it does not include participation in themysteries? It is the cooperation of the believer with the efficaciousness ofthe mysteries that enables one to be in Christ and ultimately to be ethical.This is the work of the Holy Spirit in worship.

For that which you had no power to do under the Law, now, ... youwill be able to do, to go on uprightly, and with no intervening fall, ifyou lay hold of the Spirit's aid. For it is not enough to walk after theflesh, but we must also go after the Spirit . . . (Chrysostom, "Homilieson Romans", p. 434).



Downloadedfrom


12/25

ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN BIOETHICS 139The Spirit is active in the mysteries. In the Divine Liturgy we proclaim,"[s]end down the Holy Spirit upon us and these gifts here spread forth"(Antiochian Archdiocese, p. 114). Within a natural law theology, theliturgical community, whose efficacy is in manifesting the divine-humanbody of Christ, is obscured, made suspect and abandoned (if not in form but more often in meaning). A natural law theology and bioethics cansuggest that the individual can find salvation and bioethical insight outside the liturgical community. Liturgical bioethics fights against suchindividualism. The community (founded on the divinity of Jesus Christ)gives the individual identity both as a person and the ability to be ethical.Outside the community of the mysteries the individual can find onlyisolation and death. Communities with false teachers and teachings leadmany sincere seekers astray.

V. ORTHODOX BIOETHICS IS A LITURGICAL BIOETHICSThe Orthodox Catholic Church is committed to a liturgical bioethics.Simply put: God is uncreated and man is created. Man is created in communion with God and that communion is broken with the fall. Death, theseparation between God and man, characterizes the fall. In death man issubject to, and dependent on, the physical world for temporary existence.The will of man is in bondage, and his intellect is clouded. God and thefuture remain unapproachable. The material world, now plagued withcorruption, works against people. There is no means by which humanitycan by itself break the bonds of death and restore the lost communionwith God. Lovingly, however, God comes and restores that communion.In this drama of the fall and salvation, however, death is the livingreality of man's profound separation from God. In contrast to non-Orthodox Christians, the Orthodox do not understand death to be a part ofcreation. Death is unnatural, as is all evil. It is a scandalous perversion ofthe good. Physical death is not seen as an escape from an evil or corruptbody. Both the body and soul ultimately participate in salvation. Thereality of being born into a world subject to death declares that people areblind to goodness and subject to corruption.!" Humanity is unable tomanifest the goodness of its original created nature. Neither can it behaveproperly nor triumph over death. It is constrained to toil on the earth, inorder to survive. Void of grace, man begins to survive at the expense ofhis neighbors. Humanity maintains self-importance and self-protection atthe neighbors' expense. The inability to see and stop this behavior fundsthe unethical. Life becomes unethical because it lacks divine communion



Downloadedfrom


13/25

140 FR. GEORGEEBER

and is bound by death. Most important, however, is the understandingthat just as mankind is unable to free himself from the bonds of death, heis unable to become ethical by himself. The moral life is properly the lifeof holiness, not just virtue. It requires for holiness a knowledge and response that is drawn from a liturgical relationship with the incarnateChrist.

Help must first come from the divine. The incarnation provides anontological deifying "help" to creation. Divine reality is not given throughan academic intellectual insight or a rational solution to a philosophicalproblem. No secular knowledge or effort can restore the needed relationship with God (Meyendorff, 1964, p.167f). The liturgical activities of theOrthodox Catholic Church offer divine recreation in the living Holy Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Because of the presence of the divine(who is ethical), the recreated or restored person becomes a person withrestored potential to be ethical. Therefore, Orthodox bioethics is not anactivity that seeks first to articulate discursive answers. Instead Orthodoxbioethics is foremost an activity that gives creation the reality of life notbound to death. The presence of the living God within the worshipingcommunity is whole, not divided and diverse. The Orthodox CatholicChurch realizes and maintains this divine-human existence in worship.The worshiping community gives birth to a life that is ethical.!" It is anontological reality in which the uncreated is united to the created, theethical to the unethical.

The doctrinal and ecclesiastical separation that divides the orthodoxcatholic community brings a corruption of the ability for any person orcommunity to realize and maintain the divine-human (ethical) existence.The inability of mankind to bridge the gap caused by the fall, and theefficacy of the Orthodox Catholic Church in its liturgical mysteries, provide the background against which one must address ethical and bioethical issues. Orthodox Catholic liturgical worship restores communion between God and man. It allows man to be "in Christ." Ethics is, therefore,an expression of the restored communion found in the liturgical life, not areality founded on knowledge or a natural law. In particular, the Baptismal, Chrismation and Eucharistic liturgical mysteries effect the divinehuman restoration.l? Within many traditions Baptism has taken on thesymbolic expression of a decision to believe. For many it has no power initself. How can the mind even comprehend the magnitude of God? Howcan the decision manifest change. This, I believe, is the evidence of gnostic academic theologies.Yln stark contrast Orthodox tradition understandsthat the Spirit descends upon the baptismal waters as in the creationaccount in Genesis (Gen. 1:2). Something new is created in both events.



Downloadedfrom


14/25

ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN BIOETHICS 141The new divine-human creation in baptism provides the foundation forseeing, choosing and doing correctly (ethically). Chrysostom (Homilieson Romans, p. 410) tells us that baptism sets aright free choice.?! Chrismation enhances the divine-human relationship by sealing the personwith the gift of the Holy Spirit. Bishops or priests anoint the forehead,eyes, ears, mouth, heart, hands and feet with the holy chrism to "seal"with the Holy Spirit. With the seal of the Holy Spirit the person has thepresence of the divine to do with his members as he ought. With theenergies of God one has the ability with God to give rather than to take.We sustain the divine-human life born in water and strengthened withchrism in the Eucharist, which we partake "for remission of sins and thecommunion of the Holy Spirit" (Antiochian Archdiocese, 1971, p. 122).22These mysteries are not magic. Synergy expresses man's response to

the saving presence of God in the mysteries. Each person must now workout his own salvation (Phil. 2:12). While the mysteries provide the necessary divine reality, the faithful must cooperate to manifest divine behavior. This synergistic relationship is foundational to Orthodox doctrine andultimately to bioethics. It further identifies the Orthodox relationshipbetween works and faith. Faith lies in the belief that in the mysteries ofworship the divine-human life is born and sustained. Faith also implies anaction wherein the faithful (as individuals and community) responsiblylive out that divine-human (and now ethical) life. Synergy respects theperson's right to uncoercedly choose as a matter of faith the mysteriesand the effort. One participates in their own salvation. In this divinehuman synergistic living we find that ethics and faith are intimately conjoined. The Orthodox understand, then, that in addressing bioethical questions, they are directly addressing their faith in the liturgical mysteriesand the works appropriate to them.

VI. ORTHODOX BIOETHICS AND END-OF-LIFEDECISION MAKING

Death, as separation from the divine, is the opposite of the synergistic lifein the Orthodox Catholic Church. The synergistic person shares in theresurrected life of Christ through worship. Synergistic life meets death atevery step and turns it into life. St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans, p. 413) identifies four different kinds of death: (1) the death ofAbraham; (2) the death of the soul; (3) the mortifying of members (Col.3:5); and, (4) the death that takes place in baptism. This last death holdsthe key to life (and for our purposes, for proper ethical behavior and



Downloadedfrom


15/25

142 FR. GEORGE EBER

decision making). The "old man" is put aside in baptism.P The passionsare destroyed in asceticism, God comforts Abraham even after death.i" Itis the job of the Orthodox Catholic Church to protect against the death ofthe soul, a death that is evident even when alive. In contrast, medicinestruggles with physical death. Secular bioethics, and often the bioethicsof many Christian religions differ from the bioethics of the Orthodox intheir views of death and salvation. They also differ in failing to recognizethat death is our enemy or how it is our enemy. The orthodox catholicchurch recognizes in physical death the struggle for the soul. Consequently, when addressing bioethical issues Orthodox Christians are addressingissues of salvation. End-of-life bioethical issues dramatically show thesubstantial contrasts between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christian bioethics by showing this difference in their understanding of how to approachthe enemy, death.

Orthodox Catholics are not preoccupied with sin. They are concernedwith the bond between death and sin. It is death that they fight. The goodnews of the Gospel is that Christ rose from the dead. Physical death isdestroyed. Yet physical death speaks to the death of the soul, a death thatman can do something about. Still, physical death is involved with man'ssalvation. Outside a fully realized salvation man sins for fear of death.The fear of death forces him to survive at the expense of his neighbor. Inso doing his soul is lost. The spiritual labor and goal is to die without adead soul. In facing physical death the Orthodox Catholic believer findsresurrection for the body and the soul. With the resurrection and thedivine-human reality found in the worshiping community the faithful can.synergistically accomplish this task of dying without a dead soul. 2S Consequently, it is at the critical time of death that Orthodox bioethics is sopreoccupied with the condition of the soul. End-of-life treatment decisions must then be set within the context of salvation not merely ofpostponing or hastening physical death. This is the case because death isour enemy.Death brings upon us helplessness and despair. We are helpless to carefor ourselves while others are at a loss about what they should do. Possessions lose their value and importance. These possessions offered falsesecurity and are now about to be taken from us. This involuntary asceticism recalls the voluntary asceticism that should have been practiced, as apreparation for death, throughout one's life. Death and her daughters,helplessness and despair, can be a friend by directing one to find God.They open the door of humility. Humility is where God is found. Humility as integral to holiness is not a natural virtue, but a broken-heartednessin the incarnate presence of Trinitarian mercy. Humility destroys pride,



Downloadedfrom


16/25


seeks reconciliation, and sets the liturgical synergistic stage whereonsalvation is played out. Caution should be taken to protect against attacking death (via helplessness and despair) with active euthanasia or assistedsuicide.t '' No one knows the difficulties the active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide will bring. Nevertheless, we will be reminded againthat rules and reasoning will not provide the comprehensive ability toaddress the complexity of this practice.??Life and death decisions should not be made in the face of death with a

disdain for the body. We often wrongly think of spirituality as escapingthe body. We can think of the withered body as evil and irrelevant tosalvation. However, this is quite contrary to Orthodox thinking and to theOrthodox bioethics approach to end-of-life decision making. The personneeds both soul and body. The body is to be restored and transfigured. Wesee its final destiny in the icon of the transfiguration, in which Christshows the dignity and destiny that the body-soul (as well as the person) isto achieve. We decide with respect to the person as body and soul. Theprayers for the parting of the soul attest to the work of the people inresponding to this condition (Hapgood, p. 360f).Great terror now imprisons my soul, trembling unutterable and grievous, when forth from the body it must go: Comfort thou it, 0 Allundefiled One.For as an organ of speech I am altogether extinguished, and my tongueis bound, and mine eye closed. In contrition of heart I entreat there: 0my Deliverer, save me.The destruction of ties, and the overthrow of nature's laws of union,and of the whole corporeal structure, cause me anguish and distressintolerable .. .Lo, all my days are vanished, of a truth, in vanity, as it is written, andmy years also in vain; and now the snares of death, which of a truth arebitter, have entangled my soul, and have compassed man round about.

Treatment decisions should be directed toward providing time for patients to be about their spiritual business.Whether or not a person is ready for death, having completed his spiritual journey or not,28 it would be inappropriate for the patient to diealone after extended days in an ICU in the name of doing "everythingpossible" to postpone death as much as possible. All of life should have



Downloadedfrom


17/25

144 FR. GEORGE EBER

been a time of preparing for this end.i? One would hope that the patienthas already had time to attend to necessary family and spiritual obligations. At the end, as we finally face death, it becomes time to "rest" in a"painless, blameless and peaceful manner" (Antiochian Archdiocese, p.108). We can redistribute lCU resources elsewhere than to a desperatestruggle to avoid death.Christians fail to be properly Christian bioethicists, insofar as they

treat death and dying without recognizing the central task of attending toend-of-life spiritual obligations. "Eternal security" doctrines foster sucha failure as do legalistic accounts of the rights and duties of patients,physicians, hospitals and families in the face of death. They fail to recognize that a "good death" is a good living and dying in a right believing andworshiping community. Failure to place bioethical concerns within theliturgical context of death and dying can reduce end-of-life decisions toacademic, emotional or psychological exercises divorced from the workof salvation.Orthodox Catholics understand that Christ will come again to judge theliving and the dead. They cannot presume that one is going to heaven.Judgement remains as a pending reality.30 They are sure that a just Judgereceives the faithful (repentant and humble). They should then be aboutthe task of getting ready to approach the Judge. Conversely, because ofthe failure to recognize the serious task at hand, it seems that many whohave a doctrine of eternal security have an inner void which spirituallypropels out of fear and despair to demand the heroic efforts to keeponeself or one's loved one alive. There is almost the realization that theyare dying with important unfinished business. Bioethics cannot adequately approach what is at stake in death and dying apart from concerns anddoctrines about salvation.

Death provides an opportunity to teach as well as repent. Final confessions are often sought with impending death. Final prayers seek forgiveness and absolution. Who knows better the sins of youth (other thanGod)? They might have or need to attend to the business of repentanceand reconciliation. Time is given and needed to attend to unfinished business. We should recognize and not hinder this God-given appointed "time."Not only must the dying attend to their own souls but they can also teachothers. Their death alone teaches us to reflect upon our death and themeaning we place on life. Great wisdom and insight can be given to thefamily and community- from the dying who, when facing death honestly,see and judge their lives more sincerely as a whole. The power of thismoment to teach others about creation and redemption is most extraordinary.



Downloadedfrom


18/25

ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN BIOETHICS

Hear how a father shares with his children .. .145

The copy of the Testament of Reuben, what things he charged his sonsbefore he died in the hundred and twenty-fifth year of his life. When hewas sick . . . his sons and his sons' sons were gathered . . , And he saidto them, My children, I am dying, ... rise ... that I may tell to mybrethren andto my children what things I have hidden in my heart . . .Hear, ... give ear ... what things I command you. I call to witnessagainst you this day the God of heaven, that ye walk not in the ignorance of youth . . . (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 1994, Hendrickson, p. 205)

The focus on the end-of-life decisions should be on the use of time andthe struggle for salvation of the whole community. There should be aclose link between the spiritual condition of the person and communionwith God in Christ and family. In addition one must not forget that theprayer of the community is beneficial for the soul of the dying. We alsogive the holy Eucharist even in the face of the patient 's mental impairment. Innocence and humility remain the proper offering, not intellect.After all, we regularly give young babies the Eucharist. Who knows thedepths of the spiritual world and the power of the communion within themystery of salvation? The compassion shown to Ivan Ilyich (Tolstoy)was a small step forward in developing some redeeming factors. Yet itremained far short of developing an all-encompassing religious meaningfor his life and those round him.We must also put suffering into the context of salvation. OrthodoxChristians do not seek suffering. In fact they pray for a "blameless, painless, and peaceful death" (Antiochian Archdiocese, p. 117). Within themysteries we afford comfort. Also, rather than blaming God for sufferingand death we recognized God's compassion in response to a world thatwe, with Adam and Eve, have broken. Still, in our repentance sufferingbecomes an image of suffering souls. We have not made great strides ineliminating suffering (humanity still dies), but we can do a lot aboutsaving souls. Suffering tells us how ugly this distance from God really is,and how far God came to save and call for all to return.When discussing the allocation of resources the Orthodox can alsorecognize issues of fasting, of selling all and giving to the poor, andgiving one's life for another. Orthodox fast from foods, pleasures, fameand other material and personal conditions. Fasting, the opposite of heedless consumption (gluttony), evidences the restored divine-human relationship. Adam and Eve's failure to fast in paradise brought separation



Downloadedfrom


19/25

146 FR. GEORGE EBER

from God and brought death to the world. Their sin had dramatic bioethicconsequences. They were then bound to the land and remained in bondage to death. The faithful (the firstborn in Christ) restore their communion with the divine through fasting. They fast from the deceptive thingsgiven in the fall for temporary survival. They feast on the living food ofthe banquet table, the life-giving mysteries. They substitute eternal foodfor temporary food. So in facing death one can invite almsgiving so thatall may be provided for. However, it takes ethical ability to act in thismanner. It is the mysteries that can provide the necessary strength"

Unlike Roman Catholic bioethical reflections on distinctions betweenordinary and extraordinary care, between proportionate and disproportionate medical interventions, Orthodox Christian bioethics insists on placingall moral distinctions fully and completely within the life of deificationand holiness. Drawing morally appropriate distinctions between ordinaryand extraordinary medical interventions is not possible, unless those distinctions are found within a life of holiness. The same will be the case forProtestant bioethicists who attempt to frame bioethical issues through ascriptural exegesis. The difficulty will be that the Scriptures and the truthof Christianity are only fully known within the life of true worship andbelief. Outside this liturgical context of true worship and belief, moraldistinctions will always somewhat miss the mark, remain somewhat amissand misleading.

VII. CONCLUSIONOrthodox bioethics provides a matrix of beliefs and practices that touchesall elements of health care. Orthodox Christian bioethics is about callingall people to the worshiping community in which death is destroyed andthe restoration of humanity is accomplished. Bioethics must be understood through this dynamic because bioethics is inseparable from theissues of living and surviving. Orthodox bioethics is an immersion intothe life of the unknowable God who becomes knowable in the mysteries.God is addressed and humanity finds its identity, life and future in communion with the divine. This is a wonder and mystery. In liturgical worship the Orthodox encounters and becomes the truth of the divine-humanrelationship. Here one finds an ethics or bioethics which confronts deathas an enemy, but without fear of death.

Orthodox bioethics contrasts with other Christian and non-Christianbioethics in not being an ethics of rules, principles or virtues. It is the wayto holiness. Orthodox Christian bioethics recognizes that natural law re-

"



Downloadedfrom


20/25


flections in so far as possible can give guidance sufficient neither forsalvation nor for a well-constructed bioethics. Different understandingsof the mysteries of Baptism, Chrismation, and Eucharist define our religion and distinguish Orthodox Christianity from non-orthodox Christianbioethics. Orthodox Christian bioethics stands out against other Christianbioethics because of differences in theologies of creation, fall, death, andsalvation that shape the life of the Orthodox and which contrast with whathas become the modern way of life and the life of many Christians.Orthodoxy is not a modern religion. It is a timeless religion, the reli

gion of the early Orthodox Catholic Church. It remains ever vigilant tothe challenge of new technologies, responding with age-old concerns forsalvation. In everything, Orthodoxy asks for nothing less than everything.For the Orthodox there can be no answer but that of the transfigured lifefound in the divine-human mystery affected and sustained in the historical worshiping community of faith. This as much as anything goes againstthe grain of the time and babble of competing bioethics. John Meyendorff(1974, p. 176) articulates the view of Orthodox Catholic Church:[i]n the Byzantine tradition, there has never been any strong tendencyto build systems of Christian ethics, and the Church has never beenviewed as the source of authoritative and detailed statements on Christian behavior. Church authority was certainly often called upon to solveconcrete cases, and its decisions were seen as authoritative criteria forfuture judgements; but the creative mainstream of Byzantine spirituality was a call to "perfection" and to "holiness," and not a propositionalsystem of ethics. It is the mystical, eschatological, and, therefore, maximalistic character of this call to holiness which gives it its essentialdifference from the legalism of medieval Roman Catholic, and thepuritanical moralism of other Western trends, and the relativism ofmodern "situation ethics."

NOTESI. Fr. George Eber is a Priest in the Antiochian Orthodox Christ ian Archdiocese at St.Antony Orthodox Christian Church in Tulsa, Ok. and Director of The St. AnneInstitute. Fr. George chairs a bioethics committee at a local hospital and is a memberof its Board of Directors.

2. These directives are not understood as a set of rules. They encompass what is knownas Holy Tradition. Tradition is the whole of the Orthodox Catholic Christian cult, aninterplay of events, practice and teachings. Within the context of this experience thereality of the divine life is manifest. This divine life manifested is bigger than thereality of what is seen and experienced. Tradition has the capability to respond to



Downloadedfrom


21/25

148 FR. GEORGE EBERchanging demands. It was the Tradition of the Church that responded to false teachings. The Ecumenical Council reflected in written form the life of the divine alreadyexistent in the worshiping community. There is nothing new developed but the realityof the divine at work. The Tradition is both a description of truth and the reality of thetruth. It is the revealed presence of Christ, the work of the Holy Trinity. The significance and weight of Tradition reflect the true revelatory nature of the salvific events.To ignore them is to ignore salvation. At work in this article is the perversion of theTradition by asserting the reason is greater than the revealed presence of the divine.Holy Tradition gives us married clergy, liturgical structure, and male priests (notpriestesses), all of which are reflections of the inherent life of the living body ofChrist, the ecclesia.3. Liturgy means work. Orthodox Christians are at work and in that work the reality ofsalvation (and correspondingly bioethical formation) are manifest. Refer to the concept of "synergy" below.4. Although both Romans and Protestants argue for sacraments and virtue, it is theirbelief in the "infallibility of learning" (Khomyakov, p. 43) that utlimately deprivesthe sacrament of its mystical saving power, making of it a mere symbol and fosteringa dependence on reason. Rules soon follow.5. See, for example, Gregory of Tours, Vita Patrum (Platina, Calif.: St. Herman ofAlaska Brotherhood, 1998)

6. The simple confession that Jesus is Lord is often an oversimplification. There are toomany other questions that need to be answered before we know what this means. Whowas Jesus Christ? What did He say and do? How do we know what we know? Thesequestions are answered in many way, and, no doubt, form the basis for the hundredsof "Christian" religions.7. Apostolic succession requires both the laying on of hands and the continuity ofteaching. Many argue a continuity of laying on of hands but fail to discuss thecontinuity of teaching. It cannot be argued in the Orthodox Catholic Church traditionthat the laying on of hands gives claim to a continuity of grace despite a discontinuityin teaching!8. With some exceptions (such as the Nestorians and the non-Chalcedonians) unity wassustained, often against great odds (such as the Arians).

9. Others also proclaim that they believe in "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church,"by reciting the Constantinoplian - Nicene Creed. Ironically they do so while at thesame time changing the meaning and making additions in the name of additionalknowledge or willing support of additional moral doctrines. The result remains thesame; the separation from that original wholeness of the Orthodox Catholic Church.The "one, holy . . . " portion of the creed is there for very specific reasons. I t can notbe used to justify innovative doctrines.IO. The idea of "starting a church" is alien to Orthodox thinking. Many self-generatingChristian churches are started when someone claims an anointing to teach from andabout the Bible. We must first understand that the Bible cannot start a church. It wasinstituted by Christ and the Apostles as a continuation of the Old Covenant relationship between God and man. All mankind was called to join. The Bible is a bookpublished by that particular community, that community that existed with meaningand structure. The Bible then did not exist in a vacuum. The interpretation wasalready evident in the worshiping community. As such it does not stand alone. Itcomes packaged with worship and understanding. The Bible is one of the manyexisting texts belonging to the worship community. Secondly we must understandthat to claim a new anointing one must somehow deny the earlier. This gets quiteconfusing, especially with so many teachers claiming a new anointing to teach (and



Downloadedfrom


22/25

ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN BIOETHICS 149each having a different interpretation - my how God does change). Such a practicedenies the nature of the Trinity, corrupts the doctrine of the incarnation and pervertsthe doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Orthodoxy throughout the ages is none other thanthose who have joined this church, begun by Christ and preserved by the Holy Spirit.

II . "Orthodox Catholic Church" will be used interchangeably with "Orthodox (Christian) Church".12. Non-Orthodox Christians include those in Rome as well as the Protestants and theirdescendants. From an Orthodox point of view it might even be argued that the Romans are the first Protestants (Khomyakov, p. 480.13. The Orthodox make a distinction between the energy and essence of God. The essence is beyond understanding and approach. Yet the real God is know in his energies. God can be, therefore, unknowable and knowable. The holiness of God is notvoid in the energies. Grace then as an energy is not void of holiness, it is in fact not

created. God is transcendent without being compromised or contained.14. This phrase is often sung in Orthodox services with reference to the Eucharist. Whenthe faithful "taste" of the body and blood they "see." At question is the doctrine ofknowledge. The soul in communion with the divine renews the mind. It is not themind that renews the soul. This is also an important consideration when discussingquestions of reason and natural law theology.15. A comment on "faith" is needed here. We must concede that everyone has "faith."We all believe in something. The question is what you believe in. It can be said thatmany believe in "god." What God are they talking about. This brings us back to theconfusion that the multiplicity of faiths brings us. It is not sufficient to say we allbelieve in the same God, for some trust (or have faith) in a transfiguring liturgicalsystem while others have faith in reason, or one particular person's presentation.16. It must not be understood that the Fathers rejected reason. Reason was a tool to beused. But as a tool it had its limits. In could not breach the separation between Godand man, neither could it see beyond certain boundaries. Reason needed to be "saved."The Fathers took intellectual argument seriously (in fact many were trained in rhetoric - a training which often led them to the Christian faith) nor denied philosophy.These tools could reveal a great deal concerning moral obligations and the moral life.But unlike the West, the use of reason did not develop into a faith in reason. In thisseemingly small difference in accent lies a major difference between orthodox andWestern Christian understandings of reason and its role in morality and its contributions to ecumenical discourse. I f one shares a common Orthodox Christian culture,then indeed reason should help to unite those in disagreement. Reason can be aheuristic, a rhetorical tool, an invitation to conversion. However, reason will notbridge differences in faith, for different faiths provide different initial premises andrules of moral inference. Nor will it substitute for the act of conversion. It is only inthe liturgical experience of God's uncreated energies that one comes to obtain amoral constitution and grow in the knowledge of these premises that should articulatethe moral life (or reality of the divine-human existence). It is in the liturgical experience, not in philosophical discussion, that one is taught God's statutes and learns tounderstand and live His commandments. Chrysostom proclaims that it is the sacrament that "makes our intellect brighter than fire . . . " (St. John Chrysostom: Commen-tary on St. John the Apostle and Evangelist Homilies J-47, Homily #46 p. 470).17. In Orthodox theology death and resurrection are central themes. It seems that sin andsinful nature take up the emphasis in non-Orthodox Christian churches. (Remembering that the Orthodox do not have a doctrine of sinful nature. One is born into a worldsubject to death.) Death is the enemy that holds creation in bondage. We cannotunderestimate the importance of this doctrine. It provides the basis for understanding



Downloadedfrom


23/25

150 FR. GEORGE EBERhuman nature, biblical texts, liturgical mysteries and their impact on bioethical issues.

18. Liturgical life is not a ritual or a mere commemoration of the past. It is an eventwherein something happens. When the faithful gather with the canonical clergy something happens; God is mystically manifest to effect a change life. When OrthodoxChristians speak of restoring an ethical life they address the transfiguring reality ofthe presence of Christ. Such a transfigured life knows no evil and lives without want.See the following note.19. These mysteries are not symbols or rituals. In an Orthodox Catholic theology thesymbol participates in the reality of that which it portrays (Schmemann, 1973, p.135f.). Baptism is neither ajudicial act that frees one from some inherited guilt nor asymbol of a mental belief or confession.20. It is the necessary mystery in which the divine-human restoration is manifest (Schme

mann, 1973, p. 37f). Orthodox theology does not have an anthropology that supportsthe idea of inherited guilt or the depravity of nature as understood in the WesternChristian account of original sin. Humanity is born into a world subject to death.There is no idea of sinful nature, therefore, there is no need for legal justification. Theworld has, however, been broken by sin. Because no moral behavior or mental activity can break the bonds of death, the presence of the divine nature is necessary tomake whole that which was fragmented.21. Chrysostom sets choice within the work of the Holy Spirit. He correctly proclaimsthat the will is set free within the context of the transfiguring work of the mysteries(sacraments in Western terms). The consequence of mysteries is the restoration of theability to choose freely. The fall placed the will in bondage. Why are choice and will

so important? They are the image of God in man. When man chooses good subsequent to the reality of the restored good given in the mysteries he is cooperating andproclaiming the salvific work of the Trinity. Mankind has to cooperate with the HolySpirit to win the battle within (the Kingdom of God is taken by force from within).Choice is also important when discussing "synergy" and the doctrine of the HolySpirit in relation to salvation and ecclesiology.22. All three mysteries use the material world to convey the reality of the divine. Water,oil, and bread affect the divine-human relationship. In Orthodox theology the material world is understood positively. The spiritual and the material are united. We knowthe unknowable God because of the knowable incarnate Christ. Remember that theperson is a person only with body and soul. The resurrected body of Christ and thetransfiguration of the humanity of Christ proclaim the goal and destiny of humanity.23. Orthodox Christian theology does not have a doctrine of depravity of nature. Theycannot say that there is a sinful nature or inherited guilt. A person is born innocent,but subject to death. His will and sight are darkened and he sins now because ofdeath. This "old man" is restored to a communion with God wherein the potential forholiness and ethical insight and behavior is restored.24. Abraham is referenced here to show that God is the God of the living even when theyare "dead." This deadness that we experience is only a temporary event in the life ofthe person. All has been and will be restored because of and in the resurrection. Godis bigger than death. We take our bioethical soundings from a resurrected reality andnot a reality of finiteness within death.25. The Orthodox Catholic Church teaches that the reality of the resurrection is present inthe worshiping community because the life of the resurrected Lord is present in themysteries. The Orthodox Catholic Church already participates in the first resurrection. One does not "die" (as understood as physical death) and enter heaven, one dies



Downloadedfrom


24/25

ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN BlOETHICS 151

to pride and the other passions and experiences the reality of heaven now. Hence thereferences to "taste and see" through this essay.26. Consider physician assisted suicide, PAS, in the Netherlands. PAS is considered to bea pain medication. See Henk ten Have and Jos Y.M. Welie, 1995, 'Justifying eutha

nasia: a critical evaluation of the current situation in the Netherlands,' delivered at"Ethics of Physician Assisted Suicide, Religious, Legal and Medical Concerns,"Tulsa, Oklahoma.27. The Russian people have responded to many of their difficulties with humor. One

such humorous story addresses concerns about physician assisted suicide. It seemsthat it was the custom ofthe people in the far eastern region of the now great RussianRepublic to have a family member kill a suffering member of the family. It sohappened that one such man was required to kill his suffering brother. When he raisedthe knife above his brother's heart he could not bring himself to kill him. Whenpressured to try again he went to a Russian friend in a nearby village and convincedhim, after telling of his difficulties, to kill his brother for him. The Russian agreed butfor the price of a half pint of vodka. After drinking the vodka the man killed thesuffering brother. After a few months the first man became indignant that the Russianhad killed his brother for only one-half pint of vodka. How demeaning he thought. Hearranged therefore to get revenge. After hiring a fighting expert to pose as anotherdying brother he again went to the Russian friend asking that he kill another sufferingbrother. Again a half-pint of vodka was the agreed upon price. The Russian drank hisvodka and unsuspectingly entered the room where the fighter was laying in wait. Atremendous scuffle was heard for what seemed like a long time. There were screams,shouts, groans and the breaking of furniture. Eventually the Russian emerged fromthe room having completed his job. He said, "This is difficult work, but you peopleare so stupid, why do you kill someone with so much life left in them?" With physician assisted suicide we bring to question at least the issues of the kill ing of peoplewith life left in them and the hiring of others to do the killing. Should we daremention our own thoughts?28. Life is to be spent moving towards, finding and manifesting the holy. Repentance. thedestroying of the passions (greed, pride. etc.) and simplicity of life are to be culturedwithin the liturgical life of the Church. Our time is to be spent finding God, returningto God and establishing one's life in God. The Orthodox liturgy constantly proclaims:let us commend ourselves and each other and all our life unto God.

29. Life is time to return to God. When we fail to take the time when healthy, death givesus an occasion to get about our business. We need to be looking for a good death.30. In the creed we proclaim that Christ "will come again to judge the living and thedead."31. The Orthodox faith calls for a simple life tha t abuses neither man nor creation. St.John Chrysostom tells us not to live beyond our necessity (Homilies on Romans, p.

400). Such an ethic combined with almsgiving would surely provide enough resources for those in need. Strength is not measured in human power, for there is no humanpower left at death. It is measured as "deification." Deification is the evidence of thereality of the presence of God within the life of the Orthodox Christian. When deathcomes knocking it finds again the divine life of the Trinity impregnated. Deificationis not a moral response to a godly moral example. Neither is it an intellectual measuring. In deification mankind becomes an ethical reality and finds bioethical formationand direction.



Downloadedfrom
http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/http://cb.oxford

Documents

hriscanska bioetika