Father Lazarus Abboud
How do we understand obedience in the Church, how do we obey? Does the ecclesial institution resemble the military institution, so that the one of lower rank becomes subject to the one of higher rank? Is obedience a matter of command (receiving orders, wise leadership)? In that case, what is the difference between obedience in the Church and obedience in the army, the party, and the military? Is it only the heads that change, and the one who is obeyed? We must raise many questions that we will not be able to address here: What is obedience? What are its forms? What are its ranks? Metropolitan Georges Khodr asks: “Is obedience owed to the metropolitan because he was placed in this office, so that you are obliged, in the name of certain rights, to obey him?” (1) Is the matter a right of the bishop and a duty of the believer or the priest? What are its limits — is it submission to a guide like submission to an officer? What are the ethics of the disciple? And does he remain a disciple all his life? Who is the spiritual father, and what are the ethics of the spiritual father? If the disciple obeys the spiritual father, and the spiritual father — for example the priest — obeys the metropolitan or the patriarch, then whom does the patriarch/metropolitan obey? And is obedience hierarchical — if it is hierarchical, does it not lead us, in this sense, ultimately to the system of the supreme guide on the Iranian model? Or do we fashion an old papal model, or an evangelical presbytery?
For example, we obey the metropolitan, and every work we undertake requires taking a blessing (permission), and “thus said (the spiritual father or the guide)” — and this is his wisdom and his vision; we do not grasp his wisdom, and who are we to understand it? And this resembles exactly the idea prevailing in government circles (the wise leadership and its vision — it knows more than we do). And it is astonishing that we should have only one spiritual father, while all the rest are sons and disciples all their lives.
In Christianity there is nothing called obedience as it prevails today. There are two forms of what is called obedience: the first is to God, and it is (absolute), meaning that a person adopts the divine economy and the mind of God with a conscious mind; and the second is (complete) toward the community, with discernment, wisdom, and a mature mind — “obey one another” — meaning that we work together. I shall not speak of the two, for they need more space; what I set down in the following lines are a few thoughts. And it is important that we not confuse the monastic form with the secular form in the cities — this is a dangerous and exaggerated matter, as Metropolitan Paul Yazigi says (2).
The model we can emulate is the relationship that bound Jesus to His disciples: it was a period of discipleship of three years that made them brothers, then He sent them out as apostles to the world. He trained them, taught them, and charged them, then He gave them the authority He possessed so that they might do works greater than those He had done; then they, in turn, taught others. We see that Saint Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John the Evangelist, and Timothy, Titus, and Luke were disciples of Paul the Apostle, and Mark a disciple of Peter; and the term “his spiritual son” or “their spiritual father” is not used.
So the relationship that binds a Christian to some guide (priest, monk/nun, layman/laywoman) is a relationship of “discipleship” — in another term, “mastership”; and if we wish to be more precise with the term “teacher,” we call him a “trainer” or “guide,” as John Climacus calls him, considering that the one Teacher is Jesus. And the boundaries of the relationship between the two do not exceed the boundaries of a trainer–disciple relationship (without our imagining that the spiritual father/guide is Jesus — this is an exaggeration). Obedience in this relationship means commitment and discipline under the hand of a teacher for a period of time that varies according to age. As for the obedience prevailing today, it is influenced by the sectarian and doctrinal-political factors that have brought us to where we are today; and even the term “spiritual father” is a relatively recent term that needs scrutiny based on the early Church.
The teacher teaches his disciple according to the way of Jesus (which the apostles and the holy fathers transmitted) in the principles of faith, prayer, fasting, living, and conduct; and he holds his hand to lead him on the way of Christ, as a father holds the hand of his young son and teaches him to walk, to eat, to run, and so on. And when the son grows up, he departs from his father into the battles of life and becomes a father in turn; and this father works, throughout the period of his upbringing, to release his son’s hand gradually, until he lets him walk alone on the way of Christ. Throughout all this time, the teacher appears before the disciple always praying and fasting, a model to imitate; but he must fade away at the end of this stage “He must increase, but I must decrease.” so that only the face of Christ may appear.
And thus obedience fades away. The father raises his sons so that they may soar, and when they have matured he releases them to soar in the expanse of God; then they fly together and soar as brothers together, and he transfers his sons from his fatherhood to the fatherhood of God the Father. So paternal obedience ceases when the son becomes a father, and it comes to an end, that he may listen to the voice of God without a mediator, and make of each one of his sons a new father; so they must know him as a father and experience him as a brother of the heavenly Father. Aristotle regarded his teacher Plato as a friend; we have more — the teacher becomes the brother of his disciple who becomes a teacher in turn, and both are apostles of Christ. And the creative spiritual father is the person who creates distinguished individuals for Christ in the world of the Church, and does not create similar copies; he does not clone himself in those under his hand, nor does he betray this trust. And the exceptional teacher is the one who raises a disciple who does not only do works like his own, but “will do greater works than these” (Jn 14:12). Whereas if the spiritual father does not raise from his sons brothers for himself and release them from his obedience, then he is a thief and a robber who did not enter the sheepfold by its door, and a false Christ.
In the end, it does not matter what the designation is — whether guide, spiritual father, or teacher — though everything needs theological correction; what matters is the foundations and the arrival. What we call obedience is a term meaning commitment and discipline; and the role of the Church is to create responsible, conscious people in the likeness of Jesus who bear His mind. The current form of obedience that prevails is a crooked form, contrary to the uprightness of faith; it is astonishing to see an old man still obedient like a disciple in his early years, and treated as a son who has not yet matured. Saint John Climacus says: “We must take good care not to remain in the rank of beginners after we have spent a long time in learning, for it is a great shame to see an aged elder going to school” (3). And if this indicates anything, it indicates the inability in our Church to create responsible, free people capable of being men in the Spirit led directly by the Spirit, just as the Spirit led the disciples after He had led the Teacher Jesus; and they said, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28).
References:
1. Metropolitan Georges Khodr, The New Life (the article “Obedience”), Dar al-Nahar, p. 252
2. Metropolitan Paul Yazigi, the article “Obedience.”
3. Saint John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Deir al-Shafi‘a al-Hara – al-Harsh – Bdebba al-Kura, p. 307
4. The Apostolic Fathers, translated into Arabic by the Patriarch of thrice-blessed memory Elias IV (Muawad), An-Nour Publications, 1982.