Published in Solia - The Herald, July 2003

“OLD EUROPE” and “NEW WORLD”

Leaders of many of major European nations bristled at a recently stated epithet, “Old Europe,” flung at them by a high-ranking United States official. This  title of dubious intent, it appears, implies to Europeans that they live in the past; and more offensively, Europe, itself is “passe.” 

The retort was immediate. How arrogant of this “New World” to judge the “Old World,” and besides, Europe (the implication is there) doesn’t care what the upstart continent of North America thinks nor does it need it.  “We can exist very well without you, thank you very much! 

Transatlantic tempers boiled and are boiling and will, regardless of an occasional handshake and “photo-ops”. Certainly, the US appellation will remain in the annals of history as a major gaffe, and the title will pepper diplomatic tete-a-tete “ad infinitum.” Whatever ire and amazement the phrase raised, it bespeaks of two different existences which, nevertheless, are con-joined like Siamese twins. The development of North America is, for the most part, an unfolding of an extension of Europe beyond its borders; and on the other hand, it is a new entity different from and other than Europe ( including by extension, Russia).

Both camps are correct to a certain degree. Europe is alive and well and tottering along a new course of unity in its history not too unlike the experience of the United States. Isn’t it evident, after all, in the preeminence of the “Euro.” over the once-mighty dollar? So who needs the new kid on the block? On the other hand, the United States has tramped onto the world stage either as a self-perceived sole super-power or is perceived as being a soloist super power-hungry entity which acts according to its own characteristic impulsive ways of the “Here,” and the “Now,” and the “Why not?” Rudyard Kipling once wrote, “East is East and West is West and ne’er the twain shall meet.” Of course, he was speaking of other continents and other times. But is it not recognizable that Europe is Europe and North America, North America and that although sharing certain historical experiences, each has its own “life to live?”  Europe should cease considering this part of the world as “grown-up colonies run amuck,” and the US should cease acting as though Europe is an anachronism, a mummy to be displayed but not heard from.

The United States, “contra mundum,” or  “in spite of” the opposition to US policies from some major European nations, although with the (willing?) support of others, moved forward to implement what it decided needed to be done according to its own estimation of the reality. What will be the results of these actions is still being played out but, that there is definitely a European frame of mind and a United States frame of mind cannot be denied.

How does this affect the life of the Church? Recently, while on a trip to Germany at the invitation of the Metropolitan of the Romanian Orthodox Metropolia of Germany and Central and Northern Europe, His Holiness, Teoctist, Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, stated that Romania is part of Europe and her future lies within Europe. At these words, I wondered and then agreed, indeed, Romania is an integral part of Europe and the nation and her people must expand in sharing the experience of the continent of which it is part.

It seemed very logical, indeed, that the Church of Romania should understand and support the development of her faithful within the context of the European theater. What happens in the rest of Europe immediately affects what happens in Romania.

By extension, the United States is not part of Europe, and her peoples cannot share and shape what takes place in Europe, just as Europeans should not attempt to shape the life of North America. This applies to the life of the Church as the prime sanctifier of the nation in which she preaches the Gospel. There is a Romanian saying, “Omul sfinteste locul” (It is the person who sanctifies where he lives).  Although the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, history clearly shows that the Church adapts herself to local realities. Orthodoxy in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and the Americas, is the same sacramentally, theologically and morally, however, differing according to the social and political realities in which she is living the Gospel.

I applaud the Patriarch’s observations about the role of Romania in Europe and ergo, the role of the Church of Romania in sanctifying its lands within the greater context of a united Europe. I would like to applaud all the patriarchs who also understand the need for a united Church in Canada and another in the United States so that the Church can sanctify these lands “according to the needs of each.”

Canada and the United States long ago ceased to be colonies of Europe and have “made it on their own!” One ceased through warfare and the other through a longer process of change. Nevertheless, Orthodoxy has existed for over two hundred years in North America; and certainly, the Church is living the fulness of the faith and is united sacramentally. Sacramental union, however, it not the fulness of ecclesiastical union in the One Body of Christ.

Sometimes, no, most of the time, we speak of the Church “here” and the Church “over there.” In this way, we are speaking about the administrative differences, because even “over there,” each nation has its own hierarchy and administration and spiritual life. There is a growing impatience among the majority of Orthodox Christians, clergy and lay, who vociferate or tacitly endure the silence of the Mother Churches as to why they do not recognize an Autocephalous Church in Canada and an Autocephalous Church in the United States. Silence is not golden -  it is deafening, and deafening is unkind and unproductive and mistrusting. May those voices which speak out for world peace and political unions speak out for the peace of God’s household in North America and the sanctification of the New World.

+NATHANIEL
Archbishop
Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America