Tweet
Global Politician, NY
March 24 2005
The Crescent and the Cross - Communities of God
3/25/2005
By Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.
"From the beginning, people of different languages and religions
were permitted to live in Christian lands and cities, namely Jews,
Armenians, Ismaelites, Agarenes and others such as these, except that
they do not mix with Christians, but rather live separately. For
this reason, places have been designated for these according to
ethnic group, either within the city or without, so that they may
be restricted to these and not extend their dwelling beyond them."
Bishop Demetrios Khomatianos of Ohrid, late 12th century and early
13th century AD
"The Latins still have not been anathematized, nor has a great
ecumenical council acted against them ... And even to this day this
continues, although it is said that they still wait for the repentance
of the great Roman Church."
"...do not overlook us, singing with deaf ears, but give us your
understanding, according to sacred precepts, as you yourself inspired
the apostles ... You see, Lord, the battle of many years of your
churches. Grant us humility, quiet the storm, so that we may know
in each other your mercy, and we may not forget before the end the
mystery of your love ... May we coexist in unity with each other,
and become wise also, so that we may live in you and in your eternal
creator the Father and in his only-begotten Word. You are life, love,
peace, truth, and sanctity..." East European Studies Occasional Paper,
Number 47, "Christianity and Islam in Southeastern Europe - Slavic
Orthodox Attitudes toward Other Religions", Eve Levin, January 1997
"...you faced the serpent and the enemy of God's churches, having
judged that it would have been unbearable for your heart to see the
Christians of your fatherland overwhelmed by the Moslems (izmailteni);
if you could not accomplish this, you would leave the glory of your
kingdom on earth to perish, and having become purple with your blood,
you would join the soldiers of the heavenly kingdom. In this way,
your two wishes were fulfilled. You killed the serpent, and you
received from God the wreath of martyrdom." Mateja Matejic and Dragan
Milivojevic, "An Anthology of Medieval Serbian Literature in English",
Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 1978
Any effort to understand the modern quagmire that is the Balkan must
address religion and religious animosities and grievances. Yet, the
surprising conclusion of such a study is bound to be that the role of
inter-faith hatred and conflict has been greatly exaggerated. The
Balkan was characterized more by religious tolerance than by
religious persecution. It was a model of successful co-habitation
and co-existence even of the bitterest enemies of the most disparate
backgrounds. Only the rise of the modern nation-state exacerbated
long-standing and hitherto dormant tensions. Actually, the modern
state was established on a foundation of artificially fanned antagonism
and xenophobia.
Religions in the Balkan were never monolithic enterprises. Competing
influences, paranoia, xenophobia and adverse circumstances all
conspired to fracture the religious landscape. Thus, for instance,
though officially owing allegiance to the patriarch in Constantinople
and the Orthodox "oikumene", both Serb and Bulgarian churches
collaborated with the rulers of the day against perceived Byzantine
(Greek and Russian) political encroachment in religious guise. The
southern Slav churches rejected both the theology and the secular
teachings of the "Hellenics" and the "Romanians" (Romans). In turn,
the Greek church held the Slav church in disregard and treated the
peasants of Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria and Albania to savage rounds
of tax collection. The Orthodox, as have all religions, berated other
confessions and denominations. But Orthodoxy was always benign - no
"jihad", no bloodshed, no forced conversions and no mass expulsions -
perhaps with the exception of the forcible treatment of the Bogomils.
It was all about power and money, of course. Bishops and archbishops
did not hesitate to co-opt the Ottoman administration against
their adversaries. They had their rivals arrested by the Turks or
ex-communicated them. Such squabbles were common. But they never
amounted to more than a Balkanian comedia del-arte. Even the Jews -
persecuted all over western Europe - were tolerated and attained
prominence and influence in the Balkan. One Bulgarian Tsar divorced
his wife to marry a Jewess. Southern Orthodox Christianity (as opposed
to the virulent and vituperative Byzantine species) has always been
pragmatic. The minorities (Jews, Armenians, Vlachs) were the economic
and financial backbone of their societies. And the Balkan was always a
hodge-podge of ethnicities, cultures and religions. Shifting political
fortunes ensured a policy of "hedging one's bets".
The two great competitors of Orthodox Christianity in the tight market
of souls were Catholicism and Islam. The former co-sponsored with the
Orthodox Church the educational efforts of Cyril and Methodius. Even
before the traumatic schism of 1054, Catholics and nascent Orthodox
were battling over (lucrative) religious turf in Bulgaria.
The schism was a telling affair. Ostensibly, it revolved around
obscure theological issues (who begat the Holy Spirit - the Father
alone or jointly with the Son as well as which type of bread should
be used in the Eucharist). But really it was a clash of authorities
and interests - the Pope versus the patriarch of Constantinople, the
Romans versus the Greeks and Slavs. Matters of jurisdiction coalesced
with political meddling in a confluence of ill-will that has simmered
for at least two centuries. The southern (Slav) Orthodox churches
contributed to the debate and supported the Greek position. Sects
such as the Hesychasts were more Byzantine than the Greeks and
denounced wavering Orthodox clergy. Many a south Orthodox pilloried
the Catholic stance as an heresy of Armenian or Apollinarian or Arian
origin - thus displaying their ignorance of the subtler points of
the theological debate. They also got wrong the Greek argumentation
regarding the bread of the Eucharist and the history of the schism.
But zeal compensated for ignorance, as is often the case in the Balkan.
What started as a debate - however fervent - about abstract theology
became an all out argument about derided customs and ceremonies.
Diet, dates and divine practices all starred in these grotesque
exchanges. The Latin ate unclean beasts. They used five fingers
to cross themselves. They did not sing Hallelujah. They allowed
the consumption of dairy products in Lent. The list was long and
preposterous. The parties were spoiling for a fight. As is so
often the case in this accursed swathe of the earth, identity and
delusional superiority were secured through opposition and self-worth
was attained through defiance. By relegating them to the role of
malevolent heretics, the Orthodox made the sins of the Catholics
unforgivable, their behaviour inexcusable, their fate sealed.
At the beginning, the attacks were directed at the "Latins" -
foreigners from Germany and France. Local Catholics were somehow
dissociated and absolved from the diabolical attributes of their
fellow-believers abroad. They used the same calendar as the Orthodox
(except for Lent) and similarly prayed in Church Slavonic. The only
visible difference was the recognition of papal authority by the
Catholics. Catholicism presented a coherent and veteran alternative to
Orthodoxy's inchoate teachings. Secular authorities were ambiguous
about how to treat their Catholic subjects and did not hesitate
to collaborate with Catholic authorities against the Turks. Thus,
to preserve itself as a viable religious alternative, the Orthodox
church had to differentiate itself from the Holy See. Hence, the
flaming debates and pejorative harangues.
The second great threat was Islam. Still, it was a latecomer.
Catholicism and Orthodoxy have been foes since the ninth century.
Four hundreds years later, Byzantine wars against the Moslems were
a distant thunder and raised little curiosity and interest in the
Balkan. The Orthodox church was acquainted with the tenets of Islamic
faith but did not bother to codify its knowledge or record it. Islam
was, to it, despite its impeccable monotheistic credentials, an exotic
Oriental off-shoot of tribal paganism.
Thus, the Turkish invasion and the hardships of daily life under
Ottoman rule found Orthodoxy unprepared. It reacted the way we all
react to fear of the unknown: superstitions, curses, name calling. On
the one hand, the Turkish enemy was dehumanized and bedevilled. It
was perceived to be God's punishment upon the unfaithful and the
sinful. On the other hand, in a curious transformation or a cognitive
dissonance, the Turks became a divine instrument, the wrathful
messengers of God. The Christians of the Balkan suffered from a post
traumatic stress syndrome. They went through the classical phases of
grief. They started by denying the defeat (in Kosovo, for instance)
and they proceeded through rage, sadness and acceptance.
All four phases co-existed in Balkan history. Denial by the many
who resorted to mysticism and delusional political thought. That
the Turks failed for centuries to subdue pockets of resistance (for
instance in Montenegro) served to rekindle these hopes and delusions
periodically. Thus, the Turks (and, by extension, Islam) served as
a politically cohering factor and provided a cause to rally around.
Rage manifested through the acts against the occupying Ottomans of
individuals or rebellious groups. Sadness was expressed in liturgy,
in art and literature, in music and in dance. Acceptance by conceiving
of the Turks as the very hand of God Himself. But, gradually, the
Turks and their rule came to be regarded as the work of the devil as
it was incurring the wrath of God.
But again, this negative and annihilating attitude was reserved to
outsiders and foreigners, the off-spring of Ishmael and of Hagar,
the Latins and the Turks. Moslem or Catholic neighbours were rarely,
if ever, the target of such vitriolic diatribes. External enemies -
be they Christian or Moslem - were always to be cursed and resisted.
Neighbours of the same ethnicity were never to be punished or
discriminated against for their religion or convictions - though
half-hearted condemnations did occur. The geographical and ethnic
community seems to have been a critical determinant of identity even
when confronted with an enemy at the gates. Members of an ethnic
community could share the same religious faith as the invader or the
heretic - yet this detracted none from their allegiance and place in
their society as emanating from birth and long term residence. These
tolerance and acceptance prevailed even in the face of Ottoman
segregation of religious communities in ethnically-mixed "millets".
This principle was shattered finally by the advent of the modern
nation-state and its defining parameters (history and language),
real or (more often) invented. One could sometimes find members of the
same nuclear family - but of different religious affiliation. Secular
rulers and artisans in guilds collaborated unhesitatingly with Jews,
Turks and Catholics. Conversions to and fro were common practice,
as ways to secure economic benefits. These phenomena were especially
prevalent in the border areas of Croatia and Bosnia. But everyone,
throughout the Balkan, shared the same rituals, the way of life, the
superstitions, the magic, the folklore, the customs and the habits
regardless of religious persuasion.
Where religions co-existed, they fused syncretically. Some Sufi
sects (mainly among the Janiccary) adopted Catholic rituals, made
the sign of the cross, drank alcohol and ate pork. The followers of
Bedreddin were Jews and Christians, as well as Moslems. Everybody
shared miraculous sites, icons, even prayers. Orthodox Slavs pilgrims
to the holy places in Palestine were titled "Hadzi" and Moslems were
especially keen on Easter eggs and holy water as talismans of health.
Calendars enumerated the holidays of all religions, side by side.
Muslim judges ("kadis") married Muslim men to non-Muslim women and
inter-marriage was rife. They also married and divorced Catholic
couples, in contravention of the Catholic faith. Orthodox and Catholic
habitually intermarried and interbred.
That this background yielded Srebrenica and Sarajevo, Kosovo and
Krajina is astounding. It is the malignant growth of this century. It
is the subject of our next instalment.
End
Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism
Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served
as a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline,
and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business
Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe
categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.
March 24 2005
The Crescent and the Cross - Communities of God
3/25/2005
By Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.
"From the beginning, people of different languages and religions
were permitted to live in Christian lands and cities, namely Jews,
Armenians, Ismaelites, Agarenes and others such as these, except that
they do not mix with Christians, but rather live separately. For
this reason, places have been designated for these according to
ethnic group, either within the city or without, so that they may
be restricted to these and not extend their dwelling beyond them."
Bishop Demetrios Khomatianos of Ohrid, late 12th century and early
13th century AD
"The Latins still have not been anathematized, nor has a great
ecumenical council acted against them ... And even to this day this
continues, although it is said that they still wait for the repentance
of the great Roman Church."
"...do not overlook us, singing with deaf ears, but give us your
understanding, according to sacred precepts, as you yourself inspired
the apostles ... You see, Lord, the battle of many years of your
churches. Grant us humility, quiet the storm, so that we may know
in each other your mercy, and we may not forget before the end the
mystery of your love ... May we coexist in unity with each other,
and become wise also, so that we may live in you and in your eternal
creator the Father and in his only-begotten Word. You are life, love,
peace, truth, and sanctity..." East European Studies Occasional Paper,
Number 47, "Christianity and Islam in Southeastern Europe - Slavic
Orthodox Attitudes toward Other Religions", Eve Levin, January 1997
"...you faced the serpent and the enemy of God's churches, having
judged that it would have been unbearable for your heart to see the
Christians of your fatherland overwhelmed by the Moslems (izmailteni);
if you could not accomplish this, you would leave the glory of your
kingdom on earth to perish, and having become purple with your blood,
you would join the soldiers of the heavenly kingdom. In this way,
your two wishes were fulfilled. You killed the serpent, and you
received from God the wreath of martyrdom." Mateja Matejic and Dragan
Milivojevic, "An Anthology of Medieval Serbian Literature in English",
Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 1978
Any effort to understand the modern quagmire that is the Balkan must
address religion and religious animosities and grievances. Yet, the
surprising conclusion of such a study is bound to be that the role of
inter-faith hatred and conflict has been greatly exaggerated. The
Balkan was characterized more by religious tolerance than by
religious persecution. It was a model of successful co-habitation
and co-existence even of the bitterest enemies of the most disparate
backgrounds. Only the rise of the modern nation-state exacerbated
long-standing and hitherto dormant tensions. Actually, the modern
state was established on a foundation of artificially fanned antagonism
and xenophobia.
Religions in the Balkan were never monolithic enterprises. Competing
influences, paranoia, xenophobia and adverse circumstances all
conspired to fracture the religious landscape. Thus, for instance,
though officially owing allegiance to the patriarch in Constantinople
and the Orthodox "oikumene", both Serb and Bulgarian churches
collaborated with the rulers of the day against perceived Byzantine
(Greek and Russian) political encroachment in religious guise. The
southern Slav churches rejected both the theology and the secular
teachings of the "Hellenics" and the "Romanians" (Romans). In turn,
the Greek church held the Slav church in disregard and treated the
peasants of Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria and Albania to savage rounds
of tax collection. The Orthodox, as have all religions, berated other
confessions and denominations. But Orthodoxy was always benign - no
"jihad", no bloodshed, no forced conversions and no mass expulsions -
perhaps with the exception of the forcible treatment of the Bogomils.
It was all about power and money, of course. Bishops and archbishops
did not hesitate to co-opt the Ottoman administration against
their adversaries. They had their rivals arrested by the Turks or
ex-communicated them. Such squabbles were common. But they never
amounted to more than a Balkanian comedia del-arte. Even the Jews -
persecuted all over western Europe - were tolerated and attained
prominence and influence in the Balkan. One Bulgarian Tsar divorced
his wife to marry a Jewess. Southern Orthodox Christianity (as opposed
to the virulent and vituperative Byzantine species) has always been
pragmatic. The minorities (Jews, Armenians, Vlachs) were the economic
and financial backbone of their societies. And the Balkan was always a
hodge-podge of ethnicities, cultures and religions. Shifting political
fortunes ensured a policy of "hedging one's bets".
The two great competitors of Orthodox Christianity in the tight market
of souls were Catholicism and Islam. The former co-sponsored with the
Orthodox Church the educational efforts of Cyril and Methodius. Even
before the traumatic schism of 1054, Catholics and nascent Orthodox
were battling over (lucrative) religious turf in Bulgaria.
The schism was a telling affair. Ostensibly, it revolved around
obscure theological issues (who begat the Holy Spirit - the Father
alone or jointly with the Son as well as which type of bread should
be used in the Eucharist). But really it was a clash of authorities
and interests - the Pope versus the patriarch of Constantinople, the
Romans versus the Greeks and Slavs. Matters of jurisdiction coalesced
with political meddling in a confluence of ill-will that has simmered
for at least two centuries. The southern (Slav) Orthodox churches
contributed to the debate and supported the Greek position. Sects
such as the Hesychasts were more Byzantine than the Greeks and
denounced wavering Orthodox clergy. Many a south Orthodox pilloried
the Catholic stance as an heresy of Armenian or Apollinarian or Arian
origin - thus displaying their ignorance of the subtler points of
the theological debate. They also got wrong the Greek argumentation
regarding the bread of the Eucharist and the history of the schism.
But zeal compensated for ignorance, as is often the case in the Balkan.
What started as a debate - however fervent - about abstract theology
became an all out argument about derided customs and ceremonies.
Diet, dates and divine practices all starred in these grotesque
exchanges. The Latin ate unclean beasts. They used five fingers
to cross themselves. They did not sing Hallelujah. They allowed
the consumption of dairy products in Lent. The list was long and
preposterous. The parties were spoiling for a fight. As is so
often the case in this accursed swathe of the earth, identity and
delusional superiority were secured through opposition and self-worth
was attained through defiance. By relegating them to the role of
malevolent heretics, the Orthodox made the sins of the Catholics
unforgivable, their behaviour inexcusable, their fate sealed.
At the beginning, the attacks were directed at the "Latins" -
foreigners from Germany and France. Local Catholics were somehow
dissociated and absolved from the diabolical attributes of their
fellow-believers abroad. They used the same calendar as the Orthodox
(except for Lent) and similarly prayed in Church Slavonic. The only
visible difference was the recognition of papal authority by the
Catholics. Catholicism presented a coherent and veteran alternative to
Orthodoxy's inchoate teachings. Secular authorities were ambiguous
about how to treat their Catholic subjects and did not hesitate
to collaborate with Catholic authorities against the Turks. Thus,
to preserve itself as a viable religious alternative, the Orthodox
church had to differentiate itself from the Holy See. Hence, the
flaming debates and pejorative harangues.
The second great threat was Islam. Still, it was a latecomer.
Catholicism and Orthodoxy have been foes since the ninth century.
Four hundreds years later, Byzantine wars against the Moslems were
a distant thunder and raised little curiosity and interest in the
Balkan. The Orthodox church was acquainted with the tenets of Islamic
faith but did not bother to codify its knowledge or record it. Islam
was, to it, despite its impeccable monotheistic credentials, an exotic
Oriental off-shoot of tribal paganism.
Thus, the Turkish invasion and the hardships of daily life under
Ottoman rule found Orthodoxy unprepared. It reacted the way we all
react to fear of the unknown: superstitions, curses, name calling. On
the one hand, the Turkish enemy was dehumanized and bedevilled. It
was perceived to be God's punishment upon the unfaithful and the
sinful. On the other hand, in a curious transformation or a cognitive
dissonance, the Turks became a divine instrument, the wrathful
messengers of God. The Christians of the Balkan suffered from a post
traumatic stress syndrome. They went through the classical phases of
grief. They started by denying the defeat (in Kosovo, for instance)
and they proceeded through rage, sadness and acceptance.
All four phases co-existed in Balkan history. Denial by the many
who resorted to mysticism and delusional political thought. That
the Turks failed for centuries to subdue pockets of resistance (for
instance in Montenegro) served to rekindle these hopes and delusions
periodically. Thus, the Turks (and, by extension, Islam) served as
a politically cohering factor and provided a cause to rally around.
Rage manifested through the acts against the occupying Ottomans of
individuals or rebellious groups. Sadness was expressed in liturgy,
in art and literature, in music and in dance. Acceptance by conceiving
of the Turks as the very hand of God Himself. But, gradually, the
Turks and their rule came to be regarded as the work of the devil as
it was incurring the wrath of God.
But again, this negative and annihilating attitude was reserved to
outsiders and foreigners, the off-spring of Ishmael and of Hagar,
the Latins and the Turks. Moslem or Catholic neighbours were rarely,
if ever, the target of such vitriolic diatribes. External enemies -
be they Christian or Moslem - were always to be cursed and resisted.
Neighbours of the same ethnicity were never to be punished or
discriminated against for their religion or convictions - though
half-hearted condemnations did occur. The geographical and ethnic
community seems to have been a critical determinant of identity even
when confronted with an enemy at the gates. Members of an ethnic
community could share the same religious faith as the invader or the
heretic - yet this detracted none from their allegiance and place in
their society as emanating from birth and long term residence. These
tolerance and acceptance prevailed even in the face of Ottoman
segregation of religious communities in ethnically-mixed "millets".
This principle was shattered finally by the advent of the modern
nation-state and its defining parameters (history and language),
real or (more often) invented. One could sometimes find members of the
same nuclear family - but of different religious affiliation. Secular
rulers and artisans in guilds collaborated unhesitatingly with Jews,
Turks and Catholics. Conversions to and fro were common practice,
as ways to secure economic benefits. These phenomena were especially
prevalent in the border areas of Croatia and Bosnia. But everyone,
throughout the Balkan, shared the same rituals, the way of life, the
superstitions, the magic, the folklore, the customs and the habits
regardless of religious persuasion.
Where religions co-existed, they fused syncretically. Some Sufi
sects (mainly among the Janiccary) adopted Catholic rituals, made
the sign of the cross, drank alcohol and ate pork. The followers of
Bedreddin were Jews and Christians, as well as Moslems. Everybody
shared miraculous sites, icons, even prayers. Orthodox Slavs pilgrims
to the holy places in Palestine were titled "Hadzi" and Moslems were
especially keen on Easter eggs and holy water as talismans of health.
Calendars enumerated the holidays of all religions, side by side.
Muslim judges ("kadis") married Muslim men to non-Muslim women and
inter-marriage was rife. They also married and divorced Catholic
couples, in contravention of the Catholic faith. Orthodox and Catholic
habitually intermarried and interbred.
That this background yielded Srebrenica and Sarajevo, Kosovo and
Krajina is astounding. It is the malignant growth of this century. It
is the subject of our next instalment.
End
Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism
Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served
as a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline,
and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business
Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe
categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.