Father Lazarus Abboud
The Intermediate Dictionary (Mu’jam al-Wasit) explains despotism (istibdad) linguistically: it is the verbal noun of the verb istabadda, and despotism is embodied in a person or a group: istabadda bihi means he monopolized it. Muhammad Abduh says: the despot does whatever he wishes without being accountable, ruling according to what his whims dictate, whether it agrees with the law or contradicts it. As for al-Kawakibi(1) he says: “Despotism linguistically is a person’s conceit in his own opinion and his disdain for accepting advice, or it is the independence of opinion and of shared rights”. Therefore we see that the nature of the despot is to belittle the minds of others, his unspoken attitude being “I know what you do not know”, mocking them and their opinions, and distorting the truth. An element of pride invades the despot’s heart, so Patriarch Ignatius Hazim describes him, saying: “I am everything and everyone else is nothing; I put God in my pocket and what is in anyone else’s pocket is nothing; I am God’s spoiled beloved, and everyone else is destined to be fuel for hell”, not only this, but the religious tyrant works to keep the clergy under his hand poor and occupied with seeking their daily bread, so that they do not think or use their minds, being distracted by their own worries from his errors and deviations.
As for the malady of religious despotism — and we speak here ecclesiastically — it is that a person makes himself like Jesus, who made His will entirely equal to the will of His Father. Consequently, the remedy for despotism is sharing with others in their opinion and counsel, obedience to the community, and giving glory to God (for the end of authority is to realize the interest of those for whose sake authority is exercised, namely the people).
Religious despotism is more dangerous and more dreadful than political despotism. The latter dominates the body, is easy to detect, and easy to free oneself from — the simplest being to leave the sphere of its influence. The former (the religious), however, dominates the mind and the heart, and is nourished of necessity by an authority whose word is considered true and divine. Therefore you see it firmly entrenched in people’s hearts. Where do you flee if the heart is enslaved, and the heart travels with you?
Circumstances sometimes help the despot; he does not become despotic unless certain conditions are made available to him. His aides praise him in everything, magnify his stature, and exalt his opinion and wisdom, so that he sees himself as “the shadow of God on earth”, he has a clear conscience because he always feels he is in the right, and he silences people who do not dare raise their voices before him, as the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau observes.
The despot is afflicted with narcissism. Pope Francis says:” The truth lies in the fact that the people most afflicted with narcissism (which is in reality a mental disorder) are people who enjoy authority and influence, and leaders are often narcissists”. And when a journalist asks him: were many of the church’s leaders like that? The Pope answers that church leaders were often narcissistic flatterers stirred up in the wrong way by the men of their entourage; the entourage is the leprosy of the papacy”(2), and Saint John Climacus says: observe carefully and you will find that this sinful passion blooms even to the grave in luxurious garments, perfumes, processions, and fragrances and the like.
The second cause of religious despotism is a wrong interpretation of scriptural verses and spiritual teachings. For example: when entering into discussion with one of the church leaders about a decision that was made in error, and when he is unable to give a canonical answer justifying the act, he answers you: “Obey your leaders”, which is a Pauline saying, but the Apostle Peter also says: obedience to God. The attempt to impose an opinion after failing to prove it by argument is done by citing verses of Holy Scripture to demand blind obedience — “do not argue” — and by a wrong interpretation of the verses of Scripture, especially those that call for obedience to leaders.
For example, Saint John Climacus says about obedience: “Obedience is a denial of self…. Obedience is the abandonment of discernment [and he means the abandonment of discernment]: to obey in what appears evil as though it were good(3) “, but these words must be used in their place and context, and cannot be applied to every occurrence. We must distinguish completely between monastic obedience, of which Saint Climacus spoke, and administration. Likewise it is written in Holy Scripture: “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is pleasing in the Lord” (Col. 20:3); and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says: “Obey your leaders and submit, for they keep watch over your souls” (Heb. 17:13), these verses, or the concept of obedience in general, are used to subjugate others, whereas obedience is pedagogical and does not fall within administrative work. Patriarch Ignatius Hazim says: “Even if I gave the impression that I was obedient, I was not a follower”(4), and he also says:” I had to stand against my spiritual leadership”(5). Thus obedience must be coupled with discernment, for obedience without discernment is servitude. The Patriarch was not a follower of this one or that one, for wherever necessity demanded witness to the divine truth and to conscience, he stood against the spiritual authority. The distorted concept of obedience is military submission, whereas the true concept means listening.
Suzanne de Dietrich says in her book The Divine Purpose: “In a Christian family, the parents command in Christ and the children obey in Christ; that is, obedience and command are only for the sake of Christ and His glory. But if our conscience is made to choose between Christ on one side and authority (familial, or ecclesiastical: episcopal, conciliar, and patriarchal, or civil) on the other, then the human being is not bound by his human duties, because nothing builds the dignity and freedom of the servant and makes him equal to the free man more than the awareness that he is ultimately bound to God alone… When any human authority forgets that there is an absolute authority above it, and becomes an end in itself and a law unto itself — in other words, deifies itself — it has in such a case turned into one of the forces of the Antichrist and the beast spoken of in the Book of Revelation, and in this case it must be resisted even to blood if necessary(6).
All human ranks, whether in the family, in the church, or in the state, rest upon the foundation of the absolute authority that belongs to Christ Himself. Therefore the believer who submits to a human authority submits to it in Christ — “obey in the Lord” — but if this human authority oversteps its rights and usurps a right that is not its own, and instead of being an instrument for realizing the divine purposes rises up to resist and fight them, then the duty of the Christian is to say the word of the Apostle: “We must obey God rather than men”(Acts 29:5) because no authority can exist alongside His authority unless it is in rebellion against Him. “The tragedy”, as Metropolitan Georges Khodr says, “is that the church is the companion of those men sitting in the temple who act and present themselves as gods (2 Thess. 4:2), and they are a permanent stumbling block”.
In the end, religious authority is not something subsisting by itself; it does not come with authority from God to rule over people’s souls, but rather emerges from the people to lead them to the truth of Jesus. It is but a reflection of the light of God and of the word of Holy Scripture, and it is bound by an obedience that is ultimately to God alone. Here the saying holds true: “Obey me as long as I obey God among you”. Anything beyond that is null, even if its decisions are effective by virtue of its domination and its reliance on political authority. Religious despotism, whether of a group or a person, which turns into an approach and a mentality, begets despotism, and it insinuates itself into ecclesiastical work to become the obstacle to Christ’s presence in His field and a blow to the foundation of Christian thought — “the freedom of the children of God”. Finally, we note that despotism falls into a behavior resembling the heresy of the single will (monotheletism), where one will swallows the other: the will of the person swallows the will of the community, and the will of the community prevails over the will of the person.
References:
- 1. Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi, The Nature of Despotism, page 30
- 2. Pope Francis, The Church in the Custody of Assisi, Borgu, and Loyola, Metropolitan Edmond Youssef Farhati, Archbishop of Byblos honoris causa and papal ambassador, Chorbishop Antoine Farid Shabir, Publications 2015, p. 105.
- 3. John Climacus of Sinai, The Ladder of Heaven, Monastery of the Intercessor, Harat al-Harash, Dibba, 2011, p. 260
- 4. Ignatius IV, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, Dialogues 1979-1988, p. 32
- 5. Ignatius IV Hazim, Fragrances of Antioch, p. 170
- 6. Suzanne de Dietrich, The Divine Purpose, Arabic translation by His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius IV and the monastic community of Deir al-Harf, Biblical Studies 10, An-Nour Publications, third edition, p. 183.