Perhaps more than any culture in history – America has championed the individual. The context for this cultural development was the nation’s historic resistance to the class structures of 17th and 18th century Europe (and later) as well as a positive response to certain intellectual concepts that were popular at the time of the nation’s independence. The European settlement of America in its early modern history was largely accomplished by individuals or individual families. Later migrations would see the settlement of larger groups – who frequently became part of the greater “melting-pot” in which people saw themselves first as defined by their individual talents and efforts and only secondarily as belonging to an ethnic or religious group.
American religion – first as import from Europe and later with varieties of home-grown denominations – gradually assumed the character of the culture. Salvation (already given an individual cast in some versions of early Protestantism) became viewed as almost exclusively individual in nature. By the late 20th century, Americans had become “consumers” of religion, many denominations and groups having grasped the basics of marketing.
In the face of such developments (which are quickly being exported across the globe), the essential message of the gospel – that salvation is corporate (or collective) in character rather than individual, simply sounds like heresy. At the heart of this discrepancy are two radically different views of what it means to be human – and thus what it means to be whole as a human being. I will offer several observations that seem to be related to these radically different views.
First, salvation understood primarily as individual, is inherently non-Trinitarian. This is not to say that those who teach salvation as individual do not profess faith in a Trinitarian God, but that their doctrine of salvation is divorced from their understanding of God. Trinitarian theology and soteriology have no particular or necessary connection. In such settings, worship will largely be cast in non-Trinitarian language (either emphasizing Jesus or the Holy Spirit, depending on the tradition). In many modern, market-driven models, the language of “God” will trump everything else. The Trinity is too complex and confusing to market easily.
Second, salvation understood primarily as individual, will tend towards the democratization of religion. If an individual can be saved without reference to a corporate body or collective (I’ll come back to these terms), then hierarchy is either useless or worse. The individual has his or her copy of the Scriptures, and, as individual, is seen as increasingly capable of reading the Word of God without reference outside themselves. “What it says to me,” is seen as the sufficient criteria for interpretation.
But what does this say about the understanding of what it means to be a whole human being? What is a whole individual? Politically, such wholeness has been defined in terms of power and freedom. If an individual is deprived of power, then he cannot fully realize his potential as a human being. If he is deprived of freedom, he is again deprived of his potential to choose and act in such a way as to be whole. These same concerns are easily translated into individual models of salvation. Being empowered to choose and act freely become ever more important. Thus if there is a hierarchy that refuses to ordain women – it is a stumbling block to freedom and power. The same can be said about homosexual unions, etc. Salvation, if understood in a manner that limits empowerment and freedom, will come to be seen as wrong, if only because it is a message that runs against the flow of empowerment and freedom as viewed within the culture.
An excellent example of this occured once in an inquirer’s class I was teaching before I was Orthodox (I was an Anglican priest). I was teaching a class on Christian morality and offered as authoritative the traditional teachings of the Christian faith in matters of sex and marriage, etc. One of the couples in the class seemed upset by my presentation and asked, “What right does the Church have to tell me how to live my life?” I admit that I was stunned by the question, if only because of its honesty. I gave them a short answer, “Because you are raising my children.” The complete answer has more depth, but I thought they might find it helpful to consider that the world included someone other than themselves.
What does it mean to be a human being – such that being a whole human being would be any different than what we now are? In a proper Orthodox understanding, the very conception of the human being as an “individual,” in the modern sense, is itself one of the symptoms of sin. We do not rightly exist as individuals – and fall into sin whenever we act in such a manner. The classical Christian understanding of what it means to be human, created in the image of God, is that we are persons, which is not to be confused with individuals. Personal existence is never to be understood in an isolated, self-referential manner. In Trinitarian theology, we cannot say “Father” in a self-referential manner. The very name “Father” implies another and implies some sort of relationship. The same is true of “Son,” as well as “Spirit.” This is why some Christian modernist attempts to find new expressions for the Persons of the Holy Trinity are so often heretical. “Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier,” was a popular usage by liberal Anglicans when I was in seminary – but is heretical because all three Persons of the Trinity can be named by any one of these functions. Christ’s revelation of the Trinity was intensely personal – not only giving us names by which we could refer to the Persons of the Trinity – but ultimately revealing the very reality that God is Personal. The language of Personhood is distinctly Christian and developed only within the context of the Church’s efforts to find proper expressions for what had been revealed in Christ.
To be whole as a human person, is quite distinct from wholeness as an individual. Person carries within it the uniqueness and unrepeatablity that we usually associate with the word individual. However, it also carries within it – at its very root – the understanding that a person properly only exists in communion with another person. It is in this sense that we may say “God is love.” Love is not some abstract essence which may be equated with the being of God. Rather, God is love because the Father loves the Son and the Spirit and the Son loves the Father and the Spirit and the Spirit loves the Father and the Son. Thus when Christ speaks of the new life given to His disciples He says:
As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. This I command you, to love one another (John 15:9-17).
This passage would largely be nonsense in an individualistic understanding of the human. The love we are commanded is none other than the love of the Father for the Son. Christ is not offering a moral homily on the advantages of acting in a loving manner. We are commanded to love, indeed to “abide in my love.” These things are for the fullness of our being, “that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be full.” We are transformed from servants into friends – friendship being defined as mutual sacrifice of life. This is the love of God manifest in the “emptying” (kenosis) of Christ on behalf of all creation described in Philippians 2.
It is this image and reality of personhood that is damaged in the fall. Eve eats the fruit in a manner that has no regard for God. Thus she inaugurates the first moment of non-eucharistic behavior. Food is eaten with regard only for oneself and not with regard to God. It is not a communion of life, but a meal of death. Ever after, fallen human beings turned ever inward, away from the love of other. The result is death and murder and every form of brutality. It is betrayal and coldness of heart, greed, envy and lust. These are not moral failings, but existential failings. We do not live as persons, but as mere individuals. As such we could never be saved.
The incarnation, life, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ are the invitation of God to humanity to an existence that is truly personal rather than individualistic. Thus it is that the first act to which a believer submits is Holy Baptism. There the individual ceases to exist as individual and is Baptized into true Personhood. It is the first act of communal existence given to the Christian and is the hallmark of every Christian action to follow. Met. John Zizioulas describes the new birth in Holy Baptistm as the birth of the “ecclesial hypostasis.” (I’ve never used his term in the context of a sermon-and don’t recommend it). But the “ecclesial hypostasis” means simply an existence that is “Churchly” and “Personal” (ecclesia=Church; hypostasis=Person). We are put to death in Baptism, united to Christ in His death, and made alive in His resurrection. The new existence we are given in Holy Baptism is no longer that of an individual (isolated and self-referential) but now of a Person – whose existence is confirmed and fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. These are not moral acts of a new moral code, but life-giving acts that fulfill a new existence.
Thus, to exist as a whole Person is the goal of salvation in Christ. It is for this reason that the place of communion and participation become of primary importance. Koinonia, the NT word for this reality, (often translated poorly as “fellowship”), is the truth of our existence the very mode of our being. The mysteries of Baptism and Eucharist are thus rightly seen as a participation, as is our part in the Body of Christ. Indeed all of life becomes transformed into communion and participation in the life of God. It is the life of the age to come.
Our salvation occurs in a manner that is in no way isolated, but rather in a “Cloud of Witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1). We are Baptized into a community of existence that is the Church, the Body of Christ, the Fullness of Him that filleth all in all (Ephesians 1:23). For this same reason the Church prays as community, the prayers of all generations united in one voice of praise to God. For His life is our life, our salvation and our hope.
January 12, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Nice posting Father you are right most people even catholics I am the only orthodox person in my family, think the person comes first then the group or church. I wonder what western society would be like today if it as the other way around!
January 12, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Thank you, Father, for this explanation. Being lost alone makes sense in the context of individual vs/ person.
January 13, 2009 at 10:38 am
Father Stephen is this why our little prayers alone are valuable?
January 13, 2009 at 10:55 am
I would think that first and foremost they are of value because prayer is communion with God. He prays in us. The Spirit cries “Abba, Father,” God in communion with God which is the life we step into in prayer.
And not only the Life of God, but the Life of God shared with the whole Cloud of Witnesses. In that sense, we never pray alone.
And all of our prayer is powerful, because God is merciful. He delights in our communion with Him.
January 13, 2009 at 10:58 am
Bless Father in the Name of the Lord!
This particular paragraph struck deep…
“It is this image and reality of personhood that is damaged in the fall. Eve eats the fruit in a manner that has no regard for God. Thus she inaugurates the first moment of non-eucharistic behavior. Food is eaten with regard only for oneself and not with regard to God. It is not a communion of life, but a meal of death. Ever after, fallen human beings turned ever inward, away from the love of other. The result is death and murder and every form of brutality. It is betrayal and coldness of heart, greed, envy and lust. These are not moral failings, but existential failings. We do not live as persons, but as mere individuals. As such we could never be saved.”
Forgive, i can’t say why it struck me so deeply, only that it did! Thank you Fr.
peace
mic-
January 13, 2009 at 11:07 am
Fr. Stephen, Great post.
The issue of individualism in this country also seems to be fused to the way in which some Christian read the Bible. Many Americans claim to read the Bible on a daily basis and in it’s entirety throughout the year but they do not know the culture in which the Scripture has come forth. Reading the Bible is a great thing but when read by an isolated individual it begins to lose it’s meaning. Apparently this makes a huge difference in what one sees when they turn the pages of the Bible. When we read in light of the Church, it becomes literally impossible not to get the message that we are not individuals but rather persons moving towards God and one another, created for communion. This particular country does not make community or communion easy but I believe this is also a larger existential problem of man that has found a nice comfortable resting place in the United States. I recently received the Orthodoxy study Bible and am attempting to read through it in a year. I have quickly realized, if we just read for the sake of reading, moving along with great speed, there is much that will be missed. I think that there is great wisdom in reading slowly absorbing as much as possible rather than reading to extract knowledge. It is amazing to me how many individuals are always trying to find themselves, know themselves better, etc. and somehow interpret the message of Christ about losing life in order to find it, as cryptic. or extreme. What part of “pick up the Cross and follow me” do people not understand. Thank you for the reminders in this post and for the “one sermon”, which is all about the one thing needful. If I had but one sermon to preach, this is the one I would choose. Pray for me a sinner…and to bear my cross with thanksgiving. Lord have mercy.
January 13, 2009 at 12:07 pm
A reflection: Just one change I would make. Fr. you say the religion followed the culture. I disagree, the culture followed bad theology whether it was belief in the Pope as the Church or the belief that we are each our own popes–add the humanist/scholastic ideas that God is far away and knowable only in thought and you have a real mess.
Every one of the ‘culture war’ dilemmas from abortion to the abolition of marriage to the corrupt polticial-economy stem from the human being understood as an autonomous individual rather than as a person in community. It started with bad theology which was inclcated into bad philosophy that gave rise to bad science and the twisted use of technology each step further atomizing us, leaving us alone and subject to the merciless purveyors of erstatz community, the tyrants and their muderous collective ideologies.
I was particularly struck by the statement that these were not moral failings, but existential ones which I translate as meaing that simply following a moral code (the law) is not salvific; merely having a relationship with Jesus is not enough because people in a relationship remain individuals, discreet and the relationship is remains under the control of each participant, breakable at any time–ephemeral. To counter the problem, the Jesus as tyrant idea was born which has now become Jesus as tycoon or self-help guru.
In the Orthodox setting, these ideas often seem to be translated into the ethnic phyletism (substituting an ethnic group for the individual) we suffer so much from.
As I’ve read several places lately that the choice between good and evil is a fallen choice, a possibility that only occurs when we divorce ourselves from God, become individuals. In communion with God and therefore in community with each other and the rest of creation we chose, as St. Paul and St. Gregory of Nyssa described, from amongst a plethora of good things, moving from glory to glory.
January 13, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Dear Father, bless! It is intuitively obvious to me that “Father” and “Son” express relationship and, therefore, personhood. Because of the modern uses of the word “spirit,” Holy Spirit doesn’t necessarily intuitively evoke the same sense of relationship and personhood for me–outside the context of the Scriptures, that is. I ran into a cult which believed in Father and Son, but believed the Spirit to be merely the expression of God’s power, not the third Person of the Trinity. (Possibly also some of St. Augustine’s thinking about the third Person of the Trinity being the love between the Father and the Son, or something to that effect, is responsible for some of this confusion.) I know why this is not so, given the attributes ascribed to the Holy Spirit in Scripture (i.e., only a Person, not a mere force or power, can be “grieved,” for instance). I’m thinking it might be helpful to me to understand more fully the development of the Church Fathers’ thinking about this as it relates to the revelation of the Trinity and the true nature of Personhood. Possibly the essence/energies distinction made by the Greek Fathers may also be pertinent here? Properly speaking, is it not true that God’s power/energy cannot be thought of as separate from His entire Person, (i.e., His power is not a commodity separate from His Being–I think I’m answering my own question here!)? Any sources you might recommend?
January 13, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Michael – maybe a chicken or egg thing – culture and religion were working hand in hand very much over those centuries.
Karen – what does not seem obvious to us (Personhood of the Spirit) is because “Spirit” has changed meaning in our culture – particularly at the hands of some pentecostal and charismatic theology. Spirit/Ruach/Pneuma – has at its root meaning “breath,” though it can also mean “wind.” But as “breath” it is a highly relational name (someone has to do the breathing).
St. Basil’s On the Holy Spirit is the great treatise on the Divinity and Personhood of the Spirit – his work was the foundation for the third paragraph in the Creed completed in 381 at the Second Council.
Vladimir Lossky’s Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church has much to say on the subject, as does Met. John Zizioulas – a new work by Papanikolaou, who teaches at Fordham, I think, has a masterful work that looks at both Lossky and Zizioulas. These last three works, however, are difficult reads.
January 13, 2009 at 3:13 pm
It is once again a blessing, Father, to read your refreshing post. As one raised in western protestant denominations and having, by the grace of God, come to and entered the Orthodox church as an adult, this post resonates deeply. Although I was not fully conscious of it at the time, I have since come to realize that the individualistic teachings and practices that exist in the prot-evang world was a motivating factor behind my unrest in earlier years.
The term “ecclesial-hypostasis is quite apt, I think. I seem to encounter similiar thinking in the following quote from Khomiakov:
“the Church is not an authority, just as God is not an authority, just as Christ is not an authority; for an authority is for us something external. Not an authority, I say, but truth, and at the same time the life of a Christian, his inner life; for God, Christ, the Church live in him by a life more real than the heart beating in his breast or the blood flowing in his veins; but they live, inasmuch as he himself lives by the universal life of love and unity, that is, by the life of the Church”
January 15, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I came to the Orthodox Church because I was attracted to her as an abstraction: “the Church that Christ founded; the original church”, etc.
But the Church that I found is anything but an abstraction.
January 15, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Amen.
January 15, 2009 at 6:18 pm
[...] “Salvation in a Cloud of Witnesses” by Fr. Stephen Freeman [...]
January 16, 2009 at 11:42 am
MuleChewingBriars said:
I came to the Orthodox Church because I was attracted to her as an abstraction: “the Church that Christ founded; the original church”, etc.
But the Church that I found is anything but an abstraction.
Yes – how very true!!! I came to the Church because it was the “original church”, with “right worship” and “right belief”. What I have found is Life Himself!
January 23, 2009 at 11:09 am
Hi, Father, Bless!
As always, I’m wrestling with (as another comment-poster on this site once said) “what to do with bad bishops.” I found a short article (well, comparatively) recently that had to do with the Church — and maybe individualism — and here paste it in its entirety.
After reading this, I wonder if you’d care to again reflect upon the question of “what to do with bad bishops.” Or, as I frame the question to myself sometimes: does it really matter, in this day and age, what our bishops are saying and what they teach? As an Orthodox Christian, must one align oneself with them? Does there really have to be that organic unity of which so many Orthodox speak? Or should we just ignore our leaders and “try to live an Orthodox life?”
By the way, I really enjoyed the articles by Kalomiros, and on iconoclasm. The latter I’m going to send to my son, who’s in college and of course getting quite iconoclastic!
In Christ,
Durk
The Body Of Christ Or An Organization
By Joseph Bragg
It seems to me that in many of the discussions between those who say we should “flee from the heresies of world Orthodoxy and those who say we must remain in communion with world Orthodoxy lest we divide the Church and dishonor bishops, the real issue boils down to a different understanding of the nature of the Church.
The crucial question here is what exactly is the Church? There appear to be two main answers that result in two very different responses to heresy and apostasy. Is the Church first and foremost an official organization or is it first and foremost the Body of Christ whose life is derived from union with the Faith of Christ? Let’s examine these two points of view.
The Church, as the Body of Christ, is composed of those who, through the Holy Spirit, are united to the Faith of Christ, who gather around the Eucharist under a faithful bishop, and thus are in communion with all the faithful and all the saints who hold the same faith, past and present.
That which I have just described is the local Church. That local Church is the fullness of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith. This local Church exists in a bond of love and unity with all other local Churches, wherever they are, that hold and share the same Faith of Christ. But there doesn’t have to be any larger national membership or organization to make that local Church the Catholic Church in its fullness.
Over time, the local Church develops an organization to help it run and manage its temporal affairs. There is nothing wrong with this, in and of itself.
[But] there seems to be a law of depravity that always takes over organizations. Over time, the organization becomes the essence, and the purpose for existing becomes to maintain and perpetuate the organization. In other words, the organization becomes the essential and identifying manifestation of that which it was created to serve.
What has happened in the world of Orthodoxy today is that the organization and external membership have taken over and now define what the Church is or is not. One is reckoned to be “in the Church” if he is affiliated with the officially recognized organization. When people think of the Church, they think of an organization, association, diocese or jurisdiction and the membership of the local Church in that organization is equated with holding the Faith of Christ.
This perception of the Church as membership in the officially sanctioned organization has long been the prevailing understanding in Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism and other religious groups. Many who claim to be Roman Catholic reject many of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church but are still considered members of the Church by virtue of their affiliation or membership in a parish that is under the pope.
In the past we have heard of Anglican bishops or priests who denied the deity of Christ, the virgin birth or the resurrection and yet continued to serve as priests or bishops. How could this be? Only because the perception of the Church is one of membership in the official organization or occupying an official capacity rather than as unity in the Holy Spirit in the Faith of Christ.
Now this same understanding has come to permeate the world of Orthodoxy. Historically, the Church held that you could not be Orthodox and un-Orthodox at the same time. But today this is possible due to the perception of the Orthodox Church as an external or official membership or affiliation.
This difference in understanding of the nature of the Church results in a strange phenomena in world Orthodoxy. Being canonical has come to mean an external membership or association whereas, historically, being canonical referred to holding the Faith of Christ and honoring the canons. To be honest, most in world Orthodoxy today would concede that being canonical also means holding the Faith of Christ and honoring the canons. However, in world Orthodoxy, due to the perception of the Church first and foremost as an organization, many concede that bishops can and do hold and teach heretical things and yet are still considered to be Orthodox because they are a part of the Orthodox worldwide organization.
Consequently, today, a bishop can confess the Faith of Christ in its fullness and strive to be faithful to the canons and yet be considered non-canonical and outside of the Church if he is not a member of SCOBA or in communion with world Orthodoxy. Another bishop can deny Christ or major parts of the Orthodox Faith and yet be considered canonical because he is a member of the officially recognized organization.
Nothing else can explain this other than the perception of the Church as essentially an organization or affiliation rather than as unity in the Holy Spirit in the Faith of Christ.
Much of what is written by the councils and fathers makes no sense and creates all kinds of confusion if your perception of the Church is that of an external or jurisdictional affiliation rather than unity in the Faith of Christ. For example, the canons tell us to flee from bishops who publicly teach heresy. But today people say to do so would create division and we must not do such things to bishops. But this is true only from an organizational view of things that continues to call them bishops even when they betray Christ and His Church simply because they are “official”. The canons perceive the Church as a union in the Faith of Christ and therefore tell us that to flee from a bishop who publicly teaches heresy does not divide the Church but rather preserves the Church since it is not a bishop from whom we flee but a false shepherd. Here we see that it has nothing to do with membership in an organization or occupying an official capacity but it has everything to do with the Faith that is held.
This difference between the Church as membership or external affiliation vs. the Body of Christ united in the Faith of Christ explains a lot of what has happened and is happening in the world of Orthodoxy.
It explains how the late Patriarch Meletios could recognize the Communist -sponsored “official” “Living Church” in Russia and abandon the Church in Russia led by now Saint Tikon, Patriarch of Moscow.
It explains how the late Patriarch Athenagoras could say, “We are in error and sin if we think that the Orthodox Faith came down from heaven and that other dogmas are unworthy. Three hundred million men have chosen Mohammedanism as the way to God, and further hundreds of millions are Protestant, Catholics and Buddhists. The aim of every religion is to make man better” and still be considered an Orthodox bishop who is to this day honored by world Orthodoxy as a great Orthodox bishop. He publicly denied and contradicted Christ the Saviour and yet is/was Orthodox? How can this be? It can be only where Orthodoxy is not based on the Faith of Christ but on a certain order and organization or official capacity.
It explains how the late Archbishop Iakovos of the Greek Archdiocese of America could characterize the canons as “religious prejudices” that prevent unity with non-Orthodox Christians and still be considered an Orthodox bishop.
It explains how he could speak at a World Council of Churches gathering and say, “It would be utterly foolish for the true believers to pretend or to insist that the whole truth has been revealed only to them, and that they alone possess it. Such a claim would be both unbiblical and untheological…Christ did not specify the date nor the place that the Church would suddenly take full possession of the whole truth” and still be considered an Orthodox bishop and still be honored to this day by world Orthodoxy as a great and faithful bishop. This is possible only if being Orthodox is a matter of officialdom or affiliation but impossible if Orthodoxy is a matter of unity in the Faith of Christ.
It explains how Orthodox patriarchs, bishops and priests in complete violation of the Orthodox Faith can have joint prayers and worship with the heterodox and still be considered Orthodox.
It explains how Orthodox representatives can participate in a World Council of Churches worship service that opens with the prayer, “O God Father…Your love is stretched out upon all men, to seek the Truth, which we have not known” and still be considered among the faithful bishops who rightly divide the word of truth.
It explains how Orthodox representatives can participate in a World Council of Churches gathering where prayers and worship were offered by numerous religions including Buddhist, Shinto, Spiritualists, Taoists and others and still be considered faithful Orthodox bishops.
It explains how Orthodox bishops can sign agreements recognizing the Mysteries of the non-Orthodox and permitting intercommunion contrary to the canons and still be considered Orthodox bishops.
It explains how Patriarch Bartholomew can embrace the pope as the bishop of Christendom and Roman Catholicism as the sister Church of Orthodoxy while expelling the monks of Esphigmenou who hold the Orthodox faith without compromise and still be considered the Patriarch by all the other bishops of world Orthodoxy.
It explains how the Orthodox can sign the Thyateira Confession which espouses the Branch Theory, recognizes the sacraments of the heterodox and admits that Muslims deny the divinity of Christ, but nonetheless teaches that “they believe in the true God” and still be Orthodox.
It explains how Orthodox representatives could participate in the World Council of Churches’ Barr Statement which affirms the need to “move beyond a theology which confines salvation to the explicit commitment to Jesus Christ” and still be Orthodox Christians.
It explains how the Patriarch of Antioch can enter into an Agreed Statement with the Monophysites, allowing joint prayers and intercommunion although the Monophysites do not accept the last four of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, have not publicly renounced their past and commemorate as saints those who were anathematized as heretics by the Orthodox in the Monophysite controversy and still be a faithful Orthodox bishop.
It explains how the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew could say, “The Orthodox Church does not seek to convince others of any one particular understanding of truth or revelation, nor does it seek to convert others to a particular mode of thinking”, and still be Orthodox.
This list could go on for many pages but this is more than adequate to show that all of this betrayal and denial of Christ and His Church while still considering these bishops to be Orthodox is possible only when Orthodoxy has been reduced to an external and official affiliation and association rather than a unity in the Faith of Christ.
I am compelled to say that those who deny or betray Christ and His Church cannot be Christians or bishops and we should flee from them as the canons and fathers warn us to do. Those who perceive the Church primarily as an organization or officialdom say we must continue in communion with them and honor them as bishops who rightly divide the word of truth lest we divide the Church. But that which divides the Church is to hold to something other than or different from the Faith of Christ.