An Orthodox View of Philanthropy and Church Diaconia

Abstract

According to Orthodox theology, philanthropy refers to the love of God toward man, which man is called to imitate by loving his neighbor as himself. This love consists not just in emotions but requires specific acts of philanthropy toward our fellow man in need. The church, in keeping the commandments of Christ, has developed throughout her history a rich philanthropic work. The diaconia of the church has taken many forms, thus responding to historical change and to the specific human needs at different times. Concentrating on diaconia for those who are in need of long-term care, this article presents the Orthodox view of the diaconia of the church, as realized through her own philanthropic organizations as well as through her very specific contribution to the diaconia offered by state sponsored charitable institutions.

Keywords:

• diaconia
• long-term care
• Orthodox Church
• philanthropy

I. INTRODUCTION

The mission of the church is the diaconia of man. Just as Christ did not come to be served, but to serve man and to give His life as a ransom for many (Mt. 20:28 and Mk. 10:45), so the church as the body of Christ does not exist for any other reason than to serve man and to help him to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. This service is not restricted to the spiritual life. It also embraces man as a psychosomatic creature in every fold and expression of his life; it accompanies him from the moment he is born until his death. Through the Mysteries, this service enables the faithful to participate in the uncreated Divine grace; with its holy acts it blesses all activities that cover man's material needs (Galitis, Mantzaridis, & Wiertz, 1988, pp. 97–105). Yet while all men have need of the service of the church for the attainment of their salvation, it is only special groups, such as the elderly, the orphans, and the poor, who may need the church's diaconia in their everyday struggle to overcome their worldly problems. The church, by practicing the commandment of love of Christ, shows compassion, suffers with those in need and, according to her abilities, attempts through her philanthropic work to help the ones in need. As a matter of fact, the church displays particular care for those with a long-term need by founding philanthropic institutions, such as nursing homes, orphanages, and hospitals.

The church is of course not the only agency that cares for the long-term needy or provides philanthropic work. The state engages in similar commitments, desiring the prosperity of its citizens and establishing social harmony and coherence. In order to help citizens in need of long-term care, in many developed countries the state has instituted social politics as a special branch of its responsibilities. It initiates a number of measures that facilitate the lives of the needy. The philanthropic work of the church and the social politics of the state are not identical, even if they carry out similar activities, e.g. the function of a nursing home. A nursing home under the responsibility of the state offers the elderly not only shelter and sustenance, but also dignified living conditions, possibilities for entertainment, and psychological support. Generally, the ultimate goal is to underline the client's success in life and to restore his self-confidence and self-respect. The church's nursing homes, by contrast, without neglecting the physical needs of the elderly, offers a diaconia which also includes prayer and repentance for past sins. While the state's nursing homes are religiously neutral, the church's homes focus more on ritual life and the preparation for life after death.

Are these differences so important that the church should strive to institute her own welfare facilities, or would it be better to support the efforts of the state, since the state has a better infrastructure and greater financial means? This question is definitely not new; however, it has been posed anew again at the beginning of the twenty-first century, namely at a time when the importance of cooperation is considered more urgent than ever, especially in such sensitive areas as the long-term care of the needy. Before we develop our answer to this question from the Orthodox perspective, we must offer a somewhat deeper account of the theological understanding of philanthropy and then examine how the church has responded to the issue of church-state cooperation throughout her long history.

II. THEOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF PHILANTHROPY

The philanthropy of man is theologically grounded in the philanthropy of God. Although God is completely unknown in His nature, He becomes known through His revelation to mankind and in history as philanthropic and merciful. ¹ The philanthropy of God is apparent, among other signs, in the nature of man, in his destiny, and in his place in creation. Only man is created “according to the image and likeness of God” (Gen. 1:26). Only he exists as a person who comes into communion with God. Only man has as his destiny an eternal progress, through a process of inner purification and sanctification, towards the attainment of the divine likeness (Breck, 2000, pp. 28–29). Furthermore, only man excels above the rest of creation and possesses extraordinary value, being appointed by God as steward and administrator of the world. ² While the world was called into being with one word, man was created personally by God after the complete creation of the place in which he should dwell. St. John Chrysostom explains that in the same way a city is decorated and prepared before the king enters, so the world was prepared to welcome its future lord. ³

The philanthropy of God is indissolubly connected with the divine compassion and forbearance. God does not condemn the man who has rejected His will and commits sin, but gives him His law and prepares him in this way for the coming of His Son. The philanthropy of God reaches its culmination in the incarnation of the Son, inconceivable to the human mind. The Son became perfect man, renewed and restored human nature, transforming man into a son of God. With His crucifixion and resurrection, He delivers man from the shackles of death and grants him eternal life. The philanthropy and compassion of God appear in a more concrete and experiential manner in the parables of the lost sheep and the prodigal son. In the first, the compassionate shepherd leaves the 99 sheep and searches for the one that was lost. When he finds it, his joy is so great, that he invites his friends and neighbors to celebrate together the happy rescue (Lk. 15:3–8). In the second parable, the compassionate father not only accepts his prodigal son, who returns home repentant, but hastens to greet him, to embrace him, and sacrifices “the fattened calf” in order that they may all celebrate his return (Lk. 15:11–32). Precisely because the charity of God is so great that He accepts even the most sinful man, the Liturgies performed in the Orthodox Church constitute an ongoing invocation of the philanthropy and compassion of God. ⁴

Just as God is holy and invites man to imitate His philanthropy (1 Petr. 1:16), man follows the exhortation of Christ to become holy (Athanasius the Great). Moreover, as St. Gregory the Theologian observes, there is nothing more divine about man than his capacity for philanthropy. ⁵ For this reason, every Christian is admonished to imitate the compassion of God and to become “god” for the unfortunate man. This modeling of the philanthropy of man on the philanthropy of Christ does not imply that in the Old Testament human philanthropy was unknown. On the contrary, Old Testament texts certainly present several calls for philanthropy toward all in need, especially the widows, the orphans, the elderly, the sick, and the poor. As particularly impressive examples, we mention the passage from Psalm 37:26, according to which “he is always compassionate, always lending,” and the passage from Exodus 22:22–24, according to which God does not only protect the widows and the orphans, but also correspondingly punishes those, who do harm to those people. ⁶ Nonetheless, in the Old Testament philanthropy refers mostly to those of the same nation and of the same religion. ⁷ In the New Testament, under the light of the new commandment of love (Jn. 13:34), philanthropy refers to every man indiscriminately, even to the enemy. Just as God loves all of mankind and causes the sun to rise for the evil men as well as for the good, or sends the rain to fall on honest and dishonest men alike, so He invites man to love all of mankind without discrimination and to pray for all humans (Mt. 5:45–48).

Christ completes the teaching of the law and the prophets of the Old Testament, endorsing love of God and love of one's neighbor (Mt. 22:37–40). This love is unified and indivisible, as “He who loves God, also loves his brother” (1 Jn. 4:21). In addition, whoever claims that he loves God, but hates his brother, is a liar (1 Jn. 4:20). In Christian teaching, love of God is not just a verbal confession or an emotion, but it requires philanthropic practice toward our brethren. ⁸ In addition, Christ himself assures us that there will be no entrance into the kingdom of Heaven for the man who merely verbally calls Him Lord; such an entrance is promised only to those who obey the will of God the Father in his life (Mt. 7:21). In the same manner, the Apostle James points out that there does not exist any benefit in merely wishing the naked and hungry well, while not clothing and feeding them (James 2:16–17).

The unity of love of God and love of neighbor and the importance of philanthropy as fruit of this love are underlined in the most apocalyptic manner by the words of Christ on man's final judgment at the second and glorious coming of the Lord. When all men come together before the throne of Christ, He will separate them according to the just and the unjust, measuring the philanthropic works they performed or refused to do. He will decide according to whether they gave Him food when He was hungry, water when He was thirsty, hospitality when He was a stranger, clothes when He was naked and whether they visited Him when He was sick or in prison. As a response to the logical question of both just and unjust about the exact time where they met Him, Christ said that whatever they did to whichever person, they did it to Him (Mt. 25:31–46). Love toward God and our fellow man is, therefore, not an abstract term, but the tangible practice of philanthropy towards our fellow man in need, just as feeding the hungry and visiting the sick. As Christ identifies Himself with him who is in need, St. Gregory the Theologian notes characteristically, “As long as there is time, let us visit Christ, let us heal Christ, let us feed Christ, let us dress Christ, let us meet Christ, let us honor Christ.” ⁹ The beatitudes of Christ testify to the merit of philanthropy, where among others the charitable are blessed (Mt. 5:7). This beatitude is accompanied by the promise of Christ that he will have mercy for the merciful. In his commentary on the beatitudes, St. Gregory of Nyssa emphasizes the philanthropy of God, which offers the kingdom of Heaven, requesting from the individual to give physical things to his deprived neighbor (Gregory of Nyssa).

Measure and criterion of Christian philanthropy are in accordance with the golden rule of Christian ethics: “Always do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Mt. 7:12 and Lk. 6:31). Man is encouraged to behave to his fellowmen just as he would like to be treated by others. In other words, God asks man not to remain indifferent toward the need of his neighbor, but to deal with it as if it was his own. Precisely because the natural desire for one's own good is considered the criterion of philanthropy, this commandment is, according to St. Gregory Palamas, easy to understand and easy to put into action (Gregory Palamas, 1986b, pp. 70–72). But already the very term “neighbor” is connected straightforwardly with philanthropy. When a lawyer asked Christ, “Who is my neighbor?” He narrated the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:25–37), referring to the attitude of the priest, the Levite, and the Samaritan finding the wounded man on their path. But when the lawyer asks Him, who is his neighbor, Christ changes the form of the question and asks who actually becomes the neighbor of the wounded man. The reformed question leads to an expected answer: “The one who showed him mercy” (Lk. 10:37). Thus neighbor is not only the one close to us geographically, or a relative, a fellow countryman, or one of the same religion, but each man who is approached with love and philanthropy (Vantsos, 2005, pp. 209–210; Kofinas, 2003, pp. 50–53; Breck, 2000, p. 21).

According to St. John Chrysostom, the unequal distribution of goods and, therefore, the differentiation between the wealthy and poor constitutes a means God uses in order to promote love and to prompt the practice of charity. The holy church-father distinguishes between free goods, such as the air, light, and water, all of which God offers in boundless quantities to everyone, from economic goods, which are limited in quantity and that separate mankind into wealthy and poor. The boundless and equal allowance of the free goods to all men is necessary, otherwise there would appear the danger of commercialization of these free goods by greedy individuals, condemning the poor to death. In a similar way, for the holy church-fathers the unequal distribution of all other goods is also necessary, because it gives man the opportunity to practice charity and philanthropy and thereby to gain deification in grace. ¹⁰ The wealthy person is not an absolute master of the goods that God gave him, but a steward and administrator; that is why he is called to use his wealth for the benefit of the social whole, and especially for the people who have immediate needs (St. John Chrysostom, In secundam). The poor man, on the other hand, is also called to practice philanthropy, even though he possesses fewer goods. By exercising fasting and abstinence, the poor can also secure some goods for his neighbor, who has a still more immediate need. Christ praised the widow, who donated her last two pennies to the temple, more highly than the rich, who donated much money. He explains this to his disciples by reminding them that the widow gave, even though she lacked, while the rich gave from what was unnecessary to them (Mk. 12:41–44). Apart from that, the poor may as well become philanthropist to his neighbor by visiting and bringing joy to the elderly, the sick, and the imprisoned (St. Gregory Palamas, 1986a, p. 48).

The holy church-fathers especially emphasize the social dimension of philanthropy. If, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa, all of mankind performs works of love and philanthropy toward their deprived brethren, all social inequality would cease and communal life would become more just, peaceful and secure (St. Gregory of Nyssa). St. John Chrysostom praised the first Christian community of Jerusalem because the Christians had all their possessions in common, each one receiving according to his needs. “Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need” (Acts 2:44–45). Despite the fact that the common ownership practiced by the first Christians is presented as a pattern, the church-father never meant to provoke social revolution in order to substitute the established political and economical status quo. The reason is that love creates the desire to offer assistance to one's neighbor in need, while common ownership is not creative of love. ¹¹

To conclude, philanthropy is beneficial and rewarded by God when it is an expression and fruit of love (St. Gregory Palamas, 1985a, p. 126). That is to say, not all human engagement in charity is a priori good. The good, according to saint Gregory Palamas, is not good if it is not done in a good way. A person may perform a philanthropic act and consequently help his neighbor, and yet, if the helper's motivation was inspired by the devil, i.e. if that person merely pursued (for instance) admiration and praise from others, he loses the reward from God (St. Gregory Palamas, 1985b, Homilia 6, pp. 172–174). St. Gregory here refers to the Sermon on the Mount, where Christ explains the manner in which one should show mercy. Here we are urged to do it in secret, as if the left hand did not know what the right was doing. On the other hand, when an act of mercy derives from selfish causes, it becomes superficial and is not rewarded by God (Mt. 6:1–4). The Pharisee in the parable of the Pharisee and Publican (Lk. 18:9–14) appears to be an ethical and righteous man—he abides by the Mosaic Law, performs systematic acts of philanthropy, and donates one tenth of his earnings. Yet because his obedience to the law (including the philanthropy) is not motivated by love of God and the neighbor, but instead by arrogance, hypocrisy, and an attempt at self-justification, the Pharisee does not leave the temple justified by God. Thus it becomes clear that only that philanthropy that is an expression of selfless love pleases God and makes a man worthy to receive His mercy.

III. DIACONIA IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH

The Christian understanding of philanthropy expresses itself very clearly as diaconia, as service to one's fellow man; from the beginning this service formed a central element of the life of the church. As the Apostles proclaimed the Gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ (comp. Rom. 1:1–7), they presented this act of salvation as an expression of Christ's boundless love for man. For that reason, the Apostolic proclamation itself entails an offer of love, setting Christ's love as the benchmark for all human love (Jn. 13:34) and addressing both, the offer and the benchmark, to all believers. Of course love in this new offer is understood in an all-encompassing sense. But it also expresses itself as active charity in peoples' concrete everyday lives, and especially in view of the hardships borne by those in need. The Apostles not only preached the word of God, but they themselves practiced the offer of love in their own lives.

The Christians of the Jerusalem Church felt unified through their common faith in the resurrected Christ to such an extent that they were united “heart and soul” (Acts 4:32). They had everything in common: “life, soul, harmony, the common table, the inseparable brotherhood, unfeigned love, uniting many bodies to one bond and many souls to one and the same attitude” (Basil the Great, Sermon). The common faith here includes a common life, which cares for the spiritual as well as the physical needs of others. Possessions are sold and put at the disposal of the community. This does not occur in the form of absolute possession sharing, but rather in the sense of a sensible distribution, which the Apostles themselves undertake, so that each receives as much as he needs (Acts 4:35). In this way there was ultimately none who suffered (Acts 4:35). So while a personal willingness to diaconia must be presupposed, a certain authority is necessary to lead the philanthropic works of the Church.

As the number of faithful in the Jerusalem Church kept growing, it was no longer possible for the Apostles to concentrate on their primary assignment of preaching the word of God. Their comment was: “It would not be right for us to neglect the word of God so as to distribute food” (Acts 6:3). The fact that the preaching of the word of God enjoys priority among the Apostles does not diminish the importance of the distribution of food. Precisely because this was seen as an important duty, the Apostles suggested to the community to choose seven men to carry out this service. This kind of diaconia is praised by Christ, who emphasized that the one who serves is great among men (Mt. 20:26). The specific character of this service is testified by the fact that the deacons were chosen by vote. Even after the election of the deacons, their diaconia did not take on an institutionalized form. The church's philanthropy always maintained a deeply personal character (comp. Uhlhorn, 1959, p. 49).

From the very start, Christians' philanthropic works were effected not only through and for the local community, but reached out beyond their own local church. During a famine in Jerusalem, the Apostle Paul organized the so-called logeia, a collection for the Jerusalem community. He even instructed the communities of Galatia and Corinth how to organize such a collection in order for them to have the funds ready on time, and thus provide for those in need. With this type of collection, the Christian is encouraged to contribute, but on the other hand no one's personal budget should be strained. Each should help only within his own personal means (comp. 1 Cor. 16:1), without incurring hardship on himself (2 Cor. 8:13). St. Paul understands the call to donate not as a strict directive, but rather as advice (2 Cor. 8:8–10). The donation was to be made not under a clear specification of an obligatory sum, but to correspond to the attitude of the donator, and be made freely (2 Cor. 9:7). Not the donation as such is decisive, but rather the entire structure of motivation and action. The communities of Macedonia are mentioned as especially exemplary, for “their constant cheerfulness and their intense poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity” (2 Cor. 8:2). Characteristic is the fact that those non-Jewish Christians in that community had a deep inner desire to serve the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem. Recognizing their common participation in the fulfilled promise, the participation in the spiritual welfare of the Jewish Christians, they simply could not help but become servants themselves, providing earthly goods (Rom. 15:25–27).

As a minority in a pagan surrounding, the Christians could not develop and organize their charitable activities to the extent they would have liked. Still, they were so distinguished by their practiced ethics that active philanthropic work was perceived by outsiders to be a specifically Christian trait. Not only did this distinguish them from the pagans (Ignatius, p. 712), but the Christians even earned recognition from the pagans, since their charity extended to Christians and pagans alike (comp. Sozomenos, pp. 1258–64). Money was collected at the Sunday services and given to the head of the community, who then distributed it to the needy, such as orphans, widows, the sick, the imprisoned, and strangers (Justin the Philosopher and Martyr, p. 429). The divine service, service to God, thus goes hand in hand with service to fellow man. Tertullian reports similarly. Each believer could pay his contribution on a certain day of the week, according to his wishes. It was then used for food for the poor and their burial, to support orphans, the aged, the disabled, etc. (Tertullian, p. 467). There was no preset norm on the amount to contribute, but rather the donation should be made freely and according to the donor's means. ¹²

In later times, it became possible to distinguish the philanthropia that was organized and sponsored by the church from individual members' spontaneous philanthropic efforts. In both cases, the extension of diaconic services to greater numbers of people in need, as well as in view of greater varieties of such needs, also depended on the social, political, and economic conditions under which the Church pursues her vocation (see Mantzaridis, 1981, p. 149). Organized philanthropic activity was hardly possible during the persecutions, but due to the firmness of their faith the Christians continued to distinguish themselves on the basis of their new ethos, and were even ready to witness that faith in martyrdom. In turn, this fact influenced many to become Christians themselves. As Christianity became accepted in various segments of the population and with its history taking a new turn after Constantine the Great, a fundamental change took place in the surrounding social and political environment of the church. Although Emperor Constantine was only baptized just before his death, he favored the church. So, Christianity, once suffering persecutions, turned into privilege. The inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire came to perceive themselves both as Christians and as Byzantine citizens, especially after the introduction of Christianity as the state religion by Emperor Theodosius the Great. A clear separation of church and state in today's sense was not endorsed. While each side tended to its own areas of responsibility, church and state cooperated in harmony with each other. This political situation allowed the church to develop freely in many aspects, including her philanthropic activities.

In Byzantium, the philanthropic works of the church, while retaining the spirit of the apostolic tradition, developed further. The church continued to take care of the poor, shelter strangers, assist widows and orphans, and care for the imprisoned and the sick. Yet now, in addition to the congregational level, special facilities for such service were founded. In both cases, however, leadership of philanthropic activities continued to rest with the head of the community, the bishop. The bishop himself is obligated to guide and supervise the philanthropic works of the church (Agapius & Nikodemus 1998, Apostolic Canon 59, pp. 75f). Even at elections to the office of bishop, candidates' philanthropic reputations were taken into consideration (more detailed in Constantelos, 1991, p. 61). As bishop he is called to serve the church and to give witness to Christ's love through his philanthropic work. Many could be named whose life and activities as bishop bear witness to Christian philanthropy, each in his own way. Special mention here is awarded to Basil the Great, who, in his function as bishop and because of his monasticism, was able to pursue new paths in the organization of Christian philanthropy. His philanthropic deeds serve as an example and inspiration for philanthropic facilities, even in later times. His entrance into the monastery meant a rejection of the world, so that—like any monk—he sold all his possessions. But he did so in a particularly efficient way out of love of God and man, so that the profit could be employed to benefit the poor. As Bishop of Caesarea he financed a monastery complex in the diocese with diverse philanthropic facilities, known as “basilias.” The complex consisted of poor houses, hostels for travelers, which could also accommodate pack animals and escorts, and hospitals for the care of the sick with proper doctors and attendants as well as wards for lepers (Basil the Great, Epistle 94, p. 488; Gregory the Theologian, pp. 77–580). Basil the Great sees the complex as a place of active charity. He believes that the rejection of God's will and the absence of love generate that suffering which is healed through the practiced love of fellow man. ¹³ St. regory the Theologian, a close friend of Basil the Great, calls basilias a “new city” of charity, in which Christ is emulated not only in words, but also in deeds (ibid.).

According to Basil the Great, hospitality, sympathy for the suffering, and service to the sick should be particularly characteristic of monks (Basil the Great, Oration). Just as facilities like basilias do not stand on their own feet, but are integrated within a monastery and its church, so also is charity to be understood not as a value for its own sake, but as integrated into the ascetic life and the liturgical experience. Accordingly, charity expresses itself in the twofold manner invoked already in the introduction to this essay: by satisfying physical needs in the form of shelter, nourishment, clothing, and medical aid, and as responding to spiritual needs through the liturgical life.

Throughout the centuries, up to today, monasteries carry out the church's philanthropic works, even though they are usually not able to emulate the complexity and extent to which basilias realized this vocation. The commandment of hospitality, known from the beginning as a Christian hallmark, and as a reflection of Abraham's hospitality, is valid for deserts just as for suburban monasteries. It begins with hostels caring for guests and strangers, then is extended to accepting sick travelers, and develops into the nursing sector (comp. Uhlhorn, 1959, p. 193). Especially monasteries founded near towns support services for the needy. Profit made from the sale of the monks' earthly possessions before their entrance into monastic life, donations from wealthy faithful, and tax privileges or funding by the state support the philanthropic activities of the monasteries and, thus, favor the emergence of hostels for strangers, poor houses, hospitals, and homes for the elderly and orphans (Constantelos, 1991, p. 80).

In addition, already in Byzantium organizations called diaconia were established, not as part of a monastery in the strict sense, but probably according to the example of monastic settlements in the Egyptian desert. ¹⁴ Such diaconia were administered by priests and monks and supported by wealthy donors, a neighboring monastery, or the diocese (Constantelos, 1991, p. 72). Such diaconias emerged at very lively spots in a town, at the harbor, at market places—wherever the poor, strangers, workers, and those seeking work could be found. They cared for those who live in poverty, with no work or means to support themselves, or are strangers in the town. Their service is open to all needy, regardless of origin and religion. Not only material needs are satisfied, such as alms, warm meals, and clothing, as well as health and hygiene services, but the clients are also counseled and encouraged, and they receive religious instruction. Lay employees see to the provision of material goods and the clergy are responsible for the spiritual well-being (Constantelos 1991, p. 72). The very name “diaconia” recalls the deaconate of Apostolic times, serving man in his every distress. ¹⁵

Throughout Byzantine rule (330–1453), service to the needy is offered not solely through facilities of the church and through monasteries, but also through private persons as well as the state, i.e. through the emperor. Similar to the way in which bishops pursue the philanthropic works of the church, the emperors also viewed philanthropic tasks as their duty, both through their own personal generosity and through law. Between both kinds of engagement, there is a fundamental difference. If the church provides support for those in need, this happens purely and exclusively as an act of charity; it also envisages man's entire (material as well as spiritual) well-being. If the state provides social facilities or supports the needy by means of appropriate laws, then this usually occurs with a view to the successful implementation of certain social policies, i.e. as a means to securing good order in society. Now admittedly, in Byzantium, church and state were not rigorously separated, fully independent of each other. As one contemporary theologian notes:

The Church from the beginning was counted among the pillars of the Byzantine state. She constitutes in a sense the state's inner logos, the meaning of and reason for the state's existence. Even though this does not apply generally for every epoch and for all involved parties, the general assertion is valid that the Church in Byzantium had a say in the entire political, social and cultural life of the state. (Nikolaou, 2002, p. 135)

Thus, as the highest authority in the state, the Byzantine emperors always supported philanthropic works. Generally their motive was even a Christian one and reflected the Christian understanding of philanthropy, although sociopolitical considerations can, of course, not be excluded. Philanthropy in Byzantium was considered to be an imperial virtue, exceeding all others. And even in its political implementation, it was not based simply on an ethical norm that must be fulfilled, but rather on an emulation of God's philanthropy. ¹⁶

The emperor's philanthropic works took on different forms. On the one hand, churches and monasteries were granted special favors through laws and decrees, e.g. exemption from taxation, support for the upkeep of their philanthropic facilities (orphanages, hostels, poor houses, hospitals, schools). On the other hand, the emperor and especially empresses were conspicuous for their own personal involvement as well as for their organization of philanthropic facilities. Personal adoption of those in need (orphans especially enjoyed the emperors' favor), feeding the hungry, receptions of the poor at the Imperial Court, generous donations, and building philanthropic facilities (poor houses, hostels, hospitals, orphanages) count among the numerous philanthropic works by Byzantine emperors. ¹⁷ Yet even when philanthropic facilities were donated by the emperor or wealthy private persons, their administration was often transferred to the bishops. ¹⁸ Former facilities of the church, no longer active, were likewise reactivated by the state. State facilities as a result could hardly be distinguished from those of the church, and Byzantine citizens took advantage of both.

This cooperation between church and state can be clearly demonstrated in the example of the Pantocrator Monastery in Constantinople. This is a monastery complex, donated in 1136 by Emperor John Comnenos II and his wife Irene. Although a donation of the state, it had great similarity to basilias almost eight centuries earlier. Philanthropic facilities were erected within the monastery: hostels for guests and strangers, homes for the elderly and specialized hospitals. As capital of the Byzantine Empire and destination of pilgrimages, Constantinople was the goal of many visitors who had to be accommodated. Providing for them is certainly part of the Christian tradition, but the erection of philanthropic facilities is also characteristic of the social politics of that epoch (Constantelos, 1991, p. 129). Medical attention was offered with outstanding quality for the twelfth century, providing specialized wards for specific illnesses as well as trained, specialized physicians, nursing and medicines. The monastery also included two churches, where priests carried out their assignments and care for guests in spiritual matters. According to early Christian tradition, the Divine Liturgy was celebrated four times a week, and attended by all the faithful. A priest would hear confessions and prepare the terminally ill for death (comp. Constantelos, 1991, p. 135). One could say he prepares them for life after death, since the priest's diaconia does not consist merely in psychological care, but really in passing on God's philanthropy in its entirety, as experienced in the Church (Kofinas, 2003, 42).

After Byzantine's fall, the church's cooperation with the state ceased. Still, during the Osman Empire, the church retained (as far as this was possible in different periods of her suffering) her pastoral role in health care, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople continued to found and sustain hospitals according to the Byzantine example (Kofinas, 2003, 47).

In examining the diaconia of the Orthodox Church in modern times in more detail, it is first necessary to review the most important points that have surfaced in the historical sketch just offered. Even though the experience of Divine philanthropy and its expression as diaconia in the church's history go much beyond what was described above in view of the Apostolic age and the Byzantine Empire, both of these eras still left their mark on the Church's dealing with needy persons today. The Church primarily cares for the salvation of man through God; therefore the “service of the word” has priority. The “service at the table” does not exist for itself alone, but rather emerges from faith as a natural consequence, since faith is based on Divine philanthropy. In this way, diaconia also extends to tangible physical needs that envisage man in all aspects of his suffering. The Church's diaconia is offered to all men, especially to those whose circumstances demand greater support. Diaconia to the needy has taken various forms over time. At first Christians expressed charity in their own personal lives, each according to his own capabilities and means. In their capacity as members of the Church and integrated into that community, they commonly carry out philanthropic tasks under the leadership of their bishop. The spectrum reaches from single philanthropic works, especially in mastering unexpected emergencies, to continual support of the needy and the creation of corresponding facilities. Historically speaking, in addition to an exclusively ecclesiastical diaconia, we find cooperation with the Christian state.

Today as well, the Orthodox Church can demonstrate her philanthropic concern; nothing has changed in the church's theological understanding of philanthropy nor in her consciousness of expressing this understanding. According to local possibilities, the church in her own right supports philanthropic facilities on the diocesan level. These can look back to a long tradition, e.g. homes for the elderly, hospitals and orphanages, also institutions for needs of the present day and age, e.g. facilities for drug addicts and shelters for young single pregnant women or mothers. These organizations care not only for material and psychological needs, but also provide spiritual guidance and the opportunity to participate in liturgical life. If several dioceses lie in close proximity to each other, they can support common philanthropic tasks. For example, one diocese supports a home for the elderly, the neighboring diocese administers an orphanage, and a third runs a school for the deaf.

In countries where close cooperation between the Orthodox Church and state is based on historical precedent, the philanthropic acts of the church can take advantage of experiences already made. There are e.g. in Greece many philanthropic institutions, founded and administered by a diocese, but fostered by the state. The church accepts the state's support and can still fully realize its own ideals of diaconia. Likewise there are state social facilities in which priests offer spiritual guidance. In a state hospital there is often a chapel and, for those who desire it, the chance to participate in the Mysteries as well as pastoral guidance from the responsible clergy. The church's particular contribution is always one that the state cannot offer. Although both sides administer to the same public, the state exhausts its possibilities on the horizontal or social level, whereas the church, going beyond that, has the task of administering to the vertical or transcendent concerns (Larentzakis, 1980, pp. 2019f). Certainly, purely church-sponsored institutions offer more possibilities on this spiritual level, but the church's experience in Greece has demonstrated that she can achieve her objectives in state facilities as well.

Especially for the Orthodox Church in the diaspora, cooperation with the state is often the only way to support the needy with chronic or long-term illnesses requiring in-patient care. Here, after all, the church does not enjoy the support of a large number of the faithful, and lacks the necessary resources for establishing philanthropic institutions. The question that arises is which is the best form of cooperation between church and state in diaspora. If the cooperation follows the pattern that the church becomes part of the state social welfare, then there may arise the risk of submission to the social politics of the state, even in directions which are not compatible with her faith and ethics. For example, in case of an official cooperation with a state that accepts and promotes euthanasia, one could get the wrong impression that even the church tolerates, if not accepts, such a measure at the end of life. However, as church and state share the common aim to serve people who are in need, the church could make use of possibilities and means offered by the state in order to take care of her faithful who are at the same time citizens of the state. Anyway, the church needs the consent of the state in order to perform philanthropic work in state facilities, such as nursing homes, orphanages, and hospitals. The practice has shown that the philanthropic work of Orthodox Metropolies and parishes in the diaspora, even though silent, is valuable and appreciated. Otherwise, if the church denies every form of cooperation with the state, she finally deprives herself of possibilities and chances to perform her philanthropic work to the people in need. After all, no matter how the diaconia of the church is expressed, it embraces man out of love and thus is witness to God's love for man.

IV. CONCLUSION

In her historical development, the church experienced mainly two basic forms of diaconia on the needy. First, she carries out diaconia herself and sponsors corresponding philanthropic institutions, similar to the example of Basilias. Second, she acknowledges the value of state social institutions and cooperates with them, similar to the example of the Pantocrator Monastery. In our opinion, both forms of diaconia are appropriate in tangibly assisting deprived persons and in addressing their material and spiritual needs.

If the church sponsors philanthropic facilities, then she can organize them according to her own wishes. That means she cares not only for physical needs, but also at the same time furthers the spiritual life of her charges. Through the offered liturgical activity, homilies and pastoral counseling she can prepare her clients for a life in society, but she will always do so in terms of also preparing them for life after death. Special emphasis is placed on the chance of reflection on one's life and repentance, thus orienting oneself to God. While state institutions place more value on the psychological level and strengthening self-confidence, church institutions focus more on union with God in an ecclesiastical life. The salvation of man does not consist in health or prolongation of life but in humility and repentance which bring God's grace and eternal life.

Church institutions offer more possibilities for a regulated liturgical life, something that, while not unimaginable in state facilities, is certainly more limited there. On the other hand, cooperation with state institutions opens additional possibilities for the church's diaconia. As especially religious Christians usually choose a church facility, in a state facility the clergy in charge come into contact with those Christians who have less association with the church. Thus the clergy is readily available to them as contact person in spiritual matters. And especially in their difficult times they can find support in the faith, if they feel the need.

Whether in the form of institutions or organizations or on the personal level, whether in the form of state or church initiatives, the Orthodox Church today certainly cannot enforce one absolute model for her philanthropic activities that can be utilized everywhere and at any time. Based on the social, political, and economic conditions of the time, she can only act locally out of her self-conception and bear witness to Divine philanthropy.

Notes

1. St. Maximos the Confessor, in order to underline the philanthropy of God, writes characteristically that God is impatient to spread his mercy onto men. (See St. Maximos the Confessor, p. 869A.)

2. The honor and the glory which God reserves for man are described by the psalmist as follows: “. . . Yet you have made them a little lower than Angels, and crowned them with glory and honour. You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet. . .” Psalm 8:6–7.

3. St. John Chrysostom, pp. 53, 60. See also Zisis, 1997, pp. 63–67.

4. More specifically, among the Divine Liturgies that are celebrated regularly in the Orthodox Church, the one by St. Basil the Great contains fifteen invocations of God's philanthropy, that of St. John Chrysostom twelve, and the Divine Liturgy of presanctified gifts ten (see Constantelos, 1991, pp. 33–34.) These Liturgies actually offer special requests for the people who are in need. The following prayer from the Liturgy of Basil the Great is characteristic: “Be mindful o Lord, those who are concerned for the poor. Reward them with Your rich, heavenly blessings . . . Nurture the infants; train up the youth; support the elderly; comfort the fainthearted; liberate those who are troubled by unclean spirits; sail with those at sea; accompany the wayfarers; plead for the widows; shield the orphans; free the captives; heal the afflicted. O God, look after those who are on trial or condemned to the mines, or to exile and bitter slavery, or in any way pressed, in want or in extremity” (Kezios, 1995).

5. St. Gregory the Theologian, pp. 892C–893A. See also St. John Damaskenus. p. 1473C.

6. See also Psalm 145, 9, Jeremiah, 22, 2^e, Psalm 40, 2–4, Wis. Seirach 3, 3–16.

7. The proselyte is not excluded from the philanthropy (see Deut. 24, 17–22 and Ex. 22, 21), nor is anyone excluded from the hospitality, which is a form of philanthropy too.

8. Provided that the love toward the fellowman is connected so closely with philanthropy, the two terms are used as synonyms in the teaching of the church-fathers with the one regularly replacing the other. Father Dimitrios Constantelos mentions that while in the first Christian scriptures the term “love” is dominant, since the third century the term “philanthropy” is used increasingly next to the first term. The explanation that he gives for this is that the term “philanthropy,” the love of God for man and as the love of man for his fellowman, was already known in the Greco-Roman world and it could be more easily accepted by the pagans than the term “love.” See Constantelos, 1991, pp. 29–41, particularly p. 31.

9. St. Gregory the Theologian p. 909B. St. Gregory Palamas explains that the fact that the just people inherit the Kingdom of Heaven with only one criterion, which is charity, does mot mean that the other virtues are not taken under consideration by God. Rather it means that charity, as an expression of love, is the peak of all virtues. See St. Gregory Palamas, 1985, pp. 124–126.

10. St. John Chrysostom. Homilia 2, p. 43. Commentarius in sanctum Joannem Apostolum et Evangelistam, Homilia 77 (5), PG 59, p. 420. For further information see Zisis, 1997, pp. 146–150. St. Symeon the New Theologian mentions that the maldistribution of the goods and the exhortation to philanthropy are not due to the incompetence of God to share the goods or to take care of the poor. While the devil pushed man to greed and he finally led him to the fall, Christ encourages the practice of philanthropy so as to give him salvation. Symeon New Theologian, pp. 190–196. For more about the moral consideration of wealth and poverty from a point of view of Orthodox Ethics, see Mantzaridis, 2003, pp. 451–470.

11. St. John Chrysostom. Commentarius, pp. 96–98. More about the thesis of the Churchmen about ownership see Zisis, 2002, p. 59–71.

12. On philanthropic works of the Church in post-Apostolic times in Ignatius of Antioch, Apologist Justin, and Tertullian, comp. Mantzaridis, 1981, pp. 150–151.

13. Basil the Great sees the cause of a famine in Cappadocia (378) in the indifference of the people to God as well as in indifference to the poor on the part of the wealthy and their lack of love for fellow man. The famine therefore is to be understood as a Divine instrument of instruction, meant to tear man out of this indifference (Basil the Great, Sermon, p. 309B).

14. Spreading from the old Egyptian monastic settlements, the diaconia extended into the Holy Land, to Italian towns, and the Byzantine Empire.

15. With respect to the participation of women, the deaconate underwent a change in the life of the church. In the time of the Apostles, the deaconate service was restricted to material provisions, whereas later only a liturgical function remained. Female deaconesses originally attended to order in the church, instructed women catechumens in the faith, and helped at baptisms and beyond. After infant baptism became the norm, women pursued exclusively philanthropic tasks of the church (comp. Theodorou, 1978, pp. 170f).

16. Comp. Hunger, 1963, p. 10. In Hunger's detailed investigation, philanthropy is regarded already in ancient times as a godly attribute and at the same time as a special characteristic of the ideal ruler. Therefore, this ideal continues in the Byzantine Empire in the form of the emperor's philanthropy, also on an understanding based on Christ.

17. The philanthropic deeds of the Byzantine emperors and their cooperation with the church, beginning with Emperor Constantine the Great to Emperor Alexios Comnenos, are commented on in detail by D. Constantelos (1991).

18. Even today Metropolitans in Greece are chairmen or honorary chairmen of state welfare institutions (Mantzaridis, 1981, pp. 153, 156).