When Shepherds Overreach: The Question of Authority in Orthodox Governance

By Special Correspondent

The ongoing situation at Saint Sava Cathedral raises profound questions about the proper limits of episcopal authority within Orthodox ecclesiology. While bishops hold a sacred place in our Church's hierarchical structure, Orthodox tradition has always maintained a careful balance between hierarchical leadership and proper governance processes—a balance now being tested in concerning ways.

The Serbian Orthodox Understanding of Authority

Throughout Orthodox history, episcopal authority has never been understood as unlimited or arbitrary. The bishop, though holding authority from apostolic succession, exercises this authority within a framework of canonical norms, conciliar decision-making, and established traditions.

The Serbian Orthodox Church's own Constitution and Bylaws reflect this balanced understanding, establishing clear procedures for parish governance that involve both episcopal oversight and lay participation. This includes specific provisions regarding the election and confirmation of parish boards.

"The bishop is the icon of Christ among us, but not a replacement for proper governance," notes one Orthodox theologian familiar with ecclesial structures. "In the Serbian Orthodox tradition, the bishop works within established canonical procedures, not outside them."

When Authority Extends Beyond Its Bounds

Recent directives from Bishop Irinej—particularly the demand that Father Dragoslav shut down a blog he neither operates nor controls—raise serious questions about the proper bounds of episcopal authority.

This directive attempts to extend ecclesiastical authority beyond the bounds of Church operations and into the realm of private speech by lay parishioners. More troublingly, it places an impossible burden on a priest - to control something beyond his control, with implied threats to his ministry if he fails.

"There's a profound difference between proper episcopal authority and overreach," observes a parishioner. "When bishops attempt to silence legitimate discussion of governance issues by lay members exercising their rights as citizens, or when they place priests in impossible positions, they've crossed an important line."

Historical Precedents and Lessons

This is not the first time the Orthodox Church has faced questions about the proper limits of authority. Throughout Church history, there have been moments when hierarchs attempted to extend their authority beyond its proper bounds, and the Church eventually corrected these imbalances through conciliar processes.

One notable historical parallel can be found in the response to Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky's  (bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church ) attempt to assert control over parish properties in North America in the early 20th century. The ensuing legal battles established important precedents regarding the relationship between episcopal authority and the rights of parish communities under American law.

More recently, the Orthodox Church in America established clearer guidelines for hierarchical authority following governance challenges in the early 2000s, recognizing that proper accountability and transparency strengthen rather than weaken the Church's witness.

The Dangers of Unchecked Authority

When episcopal authority extends beyond proper canonical bounds, several dangers emerge:

1. Erosion of Trust: Arbitrary exercises of authority undermine trust in Church leadership

2. Legal Vulnerability: Overreach can place churches at risk of civil litigation

3. Departure from Tradition: Such actions contradict the Orthodox understanding of synodal governance

4. Spiritual Harm: Placing impossible burdens on clergy creates spiritual distress

5. Diminished Witness: Internal governance disputes damage the Church's witness to the broader community

"The most concerning aspect is when authority becomes disconnected from accountability," notes a longtime observer of Orthodox church governance. "Orthodox ecclesiology has always maintained that authority exists for the building up of the Church, not as an end in itself."

Restoring Proper Balance

The solution to these challenges lies not in rejecting legitimate episcopal authority but in restoring it to its proper context within Serbian Orthodox tradition. This includes:

• Adherence to established bylaws and canonical procedures

• Respect for the legitimate role of lay governance in parish affairs

• Recognition of the distinction between ecclesiastical matters and private speech

• Commitment to transparency in decision-making

• Willingness to engage in dialogue rather than issuing directives

"The Church thrives when bishops exercise their God-given authority with wisdom and restraint," reflects a parish elder. "The current situation calls not for diminishment of proper authority but for its exercise within established norms that have guided our Church for generations."

Looking Forward

As the Saint Sava community awaits response from the Holy Synod regarding these governance matters, the broader question of proper authority will likely remain at the center of discussions. This is not merely an administrative matter but a question that touches on the very nature of Orthodox ecclesiology and how it functions in contemporary society.

The resolution of these issues will likely require a recommitment to Orthodox principles of governance—principles that honor both hierarchical leadership and proper procedural norms, recognizing that these are not opposing forces but complementary aspects of our Orthodox tradition.

Editor's note: This article explores theological and historical perspectives on Church governance and is offered as a contribution to ongoing community reflection on these important matters.