HISTORICAL FOOTNOTES

• OCN Website

• The Video - "A New Era Begins"

The Orthodox Christian News Service

Published by The National Herald, December 6-7, 2003

HISTORICAL FOOTNOTES TO A CHURCH DISPUTE

By Dr. Nikolaos A. Stavrou

The widening rift between the Church of Greece ad Patriarch Bartholomew I has entered a stage that requires honest discussion of its implications and political courage to put an end to foreign interventions in the affairs of the Greek Church. Though not an expert on Canon Law or Oriental intrigue, I shall offer here a few historical footnotes that could place the Patriarch’s nostalgia for the restoration of the Millet system in perspective. I first came across his name as a potential replacement of Demetrios in an intriguing way.

A senior official from the Bureau of Research and Intelligence at the Department of State who, to use his phraseology, was a the time handling “Greek, Turkish and Cyprus accounts” called to “bounce a few names of Metropolitans” as possible replacements of the deceased Patriarch. In a more pointed question he wanted to know the reputation of “Demetrius Archondonis who,” his sources had assured him “was cleared by the Turkish authorities” to assume the throne of St. Andrew as Bartholomew I. The official in question has since left the Department of State, but as a “private citizen” made his intellectual contributions to a new model of world order. This model advocates the selection of nine pivotal states, Turkey among them, which should be propped up financially, militarily and politically to assume the task of policing their vicinity on behalf of the “sole superpower.” The proponents of this model believe that the U.S. should support only “countries whose fate determines the survival and success of the surrounding region and ultimately the stability of the international system.”

The seminal “Pivotal States and U.S. Strategy,” which gave a name to this new model, saw the 19th century Ottoman Turkey as a classic example of a “pivotal state” that could be revived for the 21st century provided Turkey replaces Kemalism with Neo-Ottomanism, defines itself as the “historical protector” of Balkan and Central Asian Muslims, and be willing to refurbish its image with multi-cultural colors, before it assumes the role of regional sheriff. However, parallel to academic speculations about a desirable “post-Cold War order” events were unfolding in the Balkans which, at the time, defied rationality. First, Yugoslavia was dismantled piece by piece, Balkans Muslims were advertised as models of “Islamic moderation and victims” and wars against the Serbs as proof of the West’s willingness to defend Islam. Second, while wars were raging in the Balkans, a major conference was held in Brussels that focused on the “revived Russian Orthodox Church” and the implications of its probable convergence with Russian nationalism. Third, a key scenario of Huntington’s bigoted treatise, “The Clash of Civilizations,” which envisaged Orthodoxy vs. Islam conflict was operationalized in Bosnia, Chechnya and Kosovo. Fourth, “Turkish experts” at the Rand Corporation, with Graham Fuller in the lead, got busy searching for an “ideology that would painlessly replace Kemalism; they came up [with] Neo-Ottomanism. Where did the new Patriarch fit into this scheme of things? We can only offer some thoughts based on the evolution of things since his elevation to the throne.

Like Athenagoras I in 1948, the first post-Cold War Patriarch was expected to counterbalance the revived Russian Church by finding ways to augment his status. He was also expected to de-nationalize the Balkan Churches, redefine the Orthodox doctrine in a politically correct manner and “expand” his authority beyond the religious boutique that he is left with in Constantinople. Thus, parallel to Turkey’s use of Islamic culture as the foundation of its Balkan and Central Asia role, Bartholomaios seems to have reached back to Ottoman tradition and was a revived Orthodox Millet system as the quickest way to elevate his prestige and augment his flock. He looked at his immediate vicinity for a flock to lead and, ironically, picked his first fight with the Moscow Patriarch over jurisdiction over the Latvian Orthodox Church. It is no surprise then that he would also pick Thessaloniki to articulate his version of multi-culturalism and his nostalgia for its pre-1912 cosmopolitan character.

Sadly, Bartholomaios’ “vision” of the future pre-supposes a diminished status for the Church of Greece and raises the specter of re-dividing the Greeks among old and new.

Dr. Nikolaos A. Stavrou is professor of international affairs at Howard University in Washington, DC.