eliezer papo, religijske perspektive

PERSPECTIVESRE

LIGI

OUS RELIGION AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Sarajevo, November 2002.

CONTRIBUTORS TO THE ISSUE:

Mile BabićNataša Barolin-Pilsel

Dimitrije KalezićFatima Omerdić

Eliezer PapoRemzija Pitić

Ljubivoje Stojanović

Special English Language Issue

Rel ig ious PRel ig ious PRel ig ious PRel ig ious PRel ig ious Perspect iveserspect iveserspect iveserspect iveserspect ives

RELIGIOUS COMMU-NITIES AND POLI-TICS IN BIH...............1Franciscan Dr Mile Babić

WOMEN IN THECATHOLICCHURC.......................5Nataša Barolin-Pilsel

RELIGION ANDPOLITICS.................12Archpriest Dr DimitrijeKalezić

WOMEN IN ISLAM,WITH PARTICULARREFERENCE TOBOSNIAN SOCIETY...17Fatima Omerdić

A PERSONALATTEMPT TOUNDERSTAND THECOMPLEXRELATIONSHIPBETWEEN RELIGIONAND POLITICS...........21Eliezer Papo

ISLAM ANDPOLITICSAL -IMANU BILLAHI –BELIEF IN THE ONE .......28Remzija Pitić

THE ROLE OFWOMEN IN THEMISSION OF THEORTHODOXCHURCH....................35Archpriest Dr. LjubivojeStojanović

C O N T E N T S

RELIGIUS PERSPECTIVESMagazine for religious and human rights

November 2002 SarajevoPublisher

World Conference on Religion and Peace (WCRP) Sarajevo(Internatinal Secretariat: 777 United Natins Plaza, 10017, NY, New York, USA)

Editorial StaffOlivera Jovanović, Emir Kovačević

Hamdije Kreševljakovića 6, 71000, Sarajevo, BiH,Tel/fax:++387 33 666 776; 666 217, e-mail: [email protected]

Translation bySaba Risaluddin

Design and front page byVladimir Škarić

Graphic design byIvan Ivanović

ISSN: 1512-5874This magazine is free of charge

Sponsors: The World Conference on Religion and Peace would like to thank the: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (USA)

ere is another edi-tion of ReligiousViews in English.

Following the publication ofan English issue of ReligiousViews in June last year, com-prising a compilation of textsfrom the previous four issues,we have now translated intoEnglish the double issue pub-lished in the local language inApril of this year. There wasconsiderable interest in thefirst special English-languageissue, which is why we de-cided to publish another thisyear. The first English-lan-guage issue included paperson subjects such as freedom ofreligious confession and thereturn of refugees and dis-placed persons, the role of re-ligious communities andchurches in civil society, col-

laboration between religiouscommunities and churches inBiH, and religious education inpublic schools.

This issue addresses two sub-jects: religion and politics, andwomen and society. The ar-ticles are the work of Dr Fr.Mile Babić, Nataša Barolin-Pilsel, Dr Dimitrije Kalezić,Fatima Omerdić, Eliezer Papo,Remzija Pitić, and Dr LjubomirStojanović. Each of these ar-ticles, in the manner appropri-ate to the authors’ religiouscommunities and churches,deals with religion and its rela-tionship with politics, and withwomen and their position in re-ligious communities andchurches. The articles are theproduct of the traditional reli-gious communities and churchesin this part of the world: the Is-

lamic Community oif Bosniaand Herzegovina, the SerbianOrthodox Church, the RomanCatholic Church, and the Jew-ish Community of Bosnia andHerzegovina.

From its very first issue, Reli-gious Views attracted the at-tention of the public, bringingtogether as it does severaleminent names and their workbetween the covers of a singlepublication. We hope that youwill learn something new anddiscover something of interestfrom this issue, too, like itspredecessors.

Yours truly

The Editors

F O R E W O R D

Rel ig ious PRel ig ious PRel ig ious PRel ig ious PRel ig ious Perspect iveserspect iveserspect iveserspect iveserspect ives

eligion andpolitics have beenintimately linked

not only for centuries ormillennia, but from their veryearliest origins. The Christianreligion was thus closelylinked to politics during thetime of the EmperorConstantine, who first beganto privilege Christianity in theyear 312; or more exactly, itwas in that year thatChristianity began to takeover the role of the Romanreligion in the Roman Empire.By the time of the EmperorTheodosius, in 392 AD,Christianity had become thereligion of the state, whichmeant that anyone whoopposed Christianity wasopposed to the Roman state,and vice versa. In this unityof politics and religion, thestate was identical withpolitics, which meant thatevery policy was inherent inthe state. And religion playedthe most important role in thestate, because religion was thebasis of politics; it wasreligion that both establishedand justified policy, or in otherwords gave politics itslegitimacy.

The separation ofreligion from politics (of theChurch from the state) tookplace during the time of PopeGregory VII, at the time of thedispute over the investiture(1057-1122). This was the so-called Gregorian revolution, asHarold J. Berman calls it.Religion became divorced frompolitics, or more accuratelyreligious authority becamedivorced from politicalauthority, but both forms ofauthority continued to appeal toChristianity as their foundation;both claimed legitimacy byappeal to Christianity. It wasonly in the modern era, after thereligious wars betweenCatholics and Protestants, theFrench Revolution of 1789 andthe American Revolution of1776, that religion and politics,Church and state came to bewholly separate. After the ageof revolution, religion was nolonger the basis of politics,which was now based on theindividual and humanintelligence. The state exists forthe individual, to defend thehuman dignity of each of us, anddoes so by securing our humanrights and freedoms.

After the age ofrevolution, there came aboutdifferentiations in politics, with

society separating from thestate, which is the mostsignificant change in thepolitical life of the new era.The state protects that whichis common to all of us, whichis the human dignity of everyindividual (every citizen), andeverything else – religion,nation, culture and the like –belongs to the domain ofsociety, in which distinct andprivate interests are the rule.Freedom of religion is ahuman freedom, and entailsthe equality of all citizensbefore the state, regardless oftheir religion or whether theyare theists or atheists. To be abeliever or a non-believer, toadhere to this or that worldview, to belong to this or thatreligion, is a fundamentalhuman right. In short, it is amajor gain that religion is nolonger an affair of state, buta social issue, a privatematter, which means that allreligions are equal before thelaw of the state. The stateneither persecutes norprivileges any single religion,but protects all equally.

Here in BiH neitherreligion nor politics, norreligious people (andparticularly religiousdignitaries) are fully aware of

RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES AND POLITICS IN BIH

Dr Mile Babić, Professor at the Franciscan Theological College, Sarajevo

Religious PReligious PReligious PReligious PReligious Perspectives 1erspectives 1erspectives 1erspectives 1erspectives 1

what has taken place in themodern era in the relationshipbetween religion and politics.When national parties (theSDA, SDS and HDZ) came topower in BiH after the fall ofcommunism, they were inclose collaboration with thereligious communities and inparticular with religiousdignitaries. This meant, ineffect, a return to the oldparadigm of the relationsbetween religion andpolitics, the paradigm thathad been the rule in WesternEurope during the new era inthe wars between Catholicsand Protestants, to theparadigm that was the rule inWestern Europe after theFrench Revolution.Nationalist politicians andideologues in BiH to this dayappeal to their religion as thebasis of their politics and tothe support that they receivefrom religious communitiesthrough their dignitaries.Religion is thus made to servepolitics, to serve the nation, toserve national policies, toserve nationalism, even: inother words, religion isinstrumentalized for politicalends, or to put it figuratively,religion has subordinatedheavenly interests to earthlyinterests; it has subordinatedthe values of the kingdom ofGod to transient earthlyvalues.

This intimate tiebetween religion and nationalpolitics is to be seen at every

step in BiH. Any chancetraveller may observe thatreligious edifices (churches andmosques) and the fine newhomes of ruling nationalpoliticians (who have becomewealthy overnight) are springingup everywhere in BiH, whileeverything else is marginalized,particularly culture and theeconomy, which in fact meansthat both economic and spiritualdevelopment are totally ignored.

During the electioncampaign, the publicappearances of religiousofficials have for the most part,directly or indirectly, served topromote national policies andnational parties. It is sufficientmerely to keep up with the airand print media to see this.Indeed, national politiciansopenly boast of enjoying thesupport of the ecclesiasticalhierarchy and churchdignitaries, and thosedignitaries have donenothing to distancethemselves from this.The entire pre-election rhetoric hasbeen a rhetoric ofnational andreligious politics, andno one has mentioned economicand cultural issues. This is acampaign in which the genuineproblems people face in BiH areeither swept under the carpet orinstrumentalized. Othernational parties (other nations,other religious communities)and the international community

are blamed for every failure.Almost no one has perceivedor admitted his own errors andfailings, and almost no one hascondemned his own criminals,that is the criminals within hisown national and religiousgroup. It has been totallyforgotten that it is of theessence of Christianity toconfess to one’s own sins, notthose of others. The Gospelof Jesus calls upon usChristians to repent, that is tochange ourselves, not otherpeople.

Religion can make acontribution to the generalwelfare of society only whenit is free, which means whenit is separate from the state.Only when it is free canreligion remain true to itsessence and its purpose: toserve God and man. Religionis free when it is notpoliticized, when it is not

changed into amere tool ofmundane politics.To serve Godmeans to serve thevalues of God,the values of thekingdom of God,which Jesus

preached and practised: theuniversal human values ofpeace, freedom, love, justice,the good, the truth, and so on.These values are multipliedby being freely given, not bybeing imposed orexpropriated. To serve theindividual means to serve

2 2 2 2 2 Religious PReligious PReligious PReligious PReligious Perspectiveserspectiveserspectiveserspectiveserspectives

Mile Babić, Professor at the Franciscan Theological College, Sarajevo

human salvation, thefulfilment of the life of theindividual, to do everything toensure that life succeeds infull. Religion that is free ofmundane interests becomesthe prerequisite of freedom inboth society and state, as theprominent philosopher ofr e l i g i o nHermann Lübbestates.

In contemporarysocieties and states theproblem of individualism hasreared its head in NorthAmerica and in WesternEurope: in democraticcountries, that is. If the stateis there to protect theindividual, this raises thequestion of whether thereare any values that link theindividual to a givencommunity. Religion cancontribute to that quest forshared values, for fundamentalvalues. As a result, nowadays,it is indirectly acknowledgedthat the political system isbased on values that it has notitself given rise to, on valuesexternal to itself, on valuesthat give it its basis andjustification (legitimacy).This is why there is talk ofcivil religion these days,meaning the fundamentalvalues that are common to allthe religions of a given polity,all the citizens of a given state.But this entails the negation ofthe specific nature of each ofthe religions of that polity.Religion is competent to bear

witness to those fundamentalvalues when it does not servemundane interests. Theseshared values spread andmultiply by giving, by bestowal.And given that this is so, theyare essentially shared orcommon values (not privateones), and they transform

humanity into ac o m p l e xcommunity.

R e l i g i o u scommunities and religiousofficials are competent solelyfor the spiritual and the moralaspects of politics, and not onlyof politics but of the sciencesand everything else that peopleare engaged in in this world. As

a result, religious officialshave no jurisdiction over theeconomy as such, or overpolitics as such, but only

over the spiritual (and moral)aspect of the economy andpolitics and so on. The purposeof the action of religiouscommunities and religiousofficials is neither politics norabstention from politics, but (ifwe take Christians as anexample) to proclaim andpractise the values of the Gospelof Jesus. Their field of actionis spiritual, that is non-political,but that spiritual actioninvariably has a politicaldimension, and in practicebecomes political. This is rightand proper, but in so doing,Christians must respect thedemocratic rules of the game.

As far as buildingmutual trust and confidence is

concerned, religiouscommunities bear the majorresponsibility, and it isfurthermore an irreplaceableone. If believers believe inGod as the Creator of allthings, if they trust in God,then by the logic of the matterthey must trust not only in allpeople but also in all of God’screation on this earth. Thelitmus test for every religiouscommunity, for every believerand for every religiousofficial, and above all forevery religious dignitary, is:

Do religiousdignitaries and religiousofficials tell their flock, andshow them by example, howthey should witness to theirtrust and their love primarilytowards others, that istowards the members of otherreligions and other peoples inBiH? Or do they prohibittheir flock from doing so,indirectly and tacitly? Dothey prohibit love for one’sfellow man and woman, or dothey enjoin it?

It is of the essence ofreligion to witness to trust inGod and love of God and towitness to trust in other people(which for us Catholics meansto trust in Muslims, Jews,Orthodox, atheists and so on)and love for others. It is onthe response to this questionthat the very future of BiHdepends.

Religious PReligious PReligious PReligious PReligious Perspectives erspectives erspectives erspectives erspectives 33333


Bibliography

1. Mile Babić, Idolopoklonstvo utemeljuje nasilje, Forum Bosnae, 1999, no.3/4, pp. 7-9; German - trans.: Götzendienst als Ursache für Gewalt, Lichtungen, 79/XX. Jg. 1999, pp. 100-108.

2. ibid, Kristološko utemeljenje tolerancije, Forum Bosnae, 2000, no.9/20, pp. 287-320.

3. ibid, Crkva i društvo, Jukić, no. 24/25, pp. 237-239.

4. ibid, regular articles published in Svjetlo riječi from January 2000 to date.

5. Collected papers Tolerancija i tradicija, eds. A. Seligman and R. Mahmutćehajić, Forum Bosnae, 2000, no. 9/10.

6. Harold J. Berman, Recht und Revolution, trans. from English, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1995.

7. Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Recht, Staat, Freiheit, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1992.

8. ibid, Staat-Gesellschaft-Kirche, Christlicher Glaube in moderner Gesellschaft, Herder, Freiburg- Basel-Wien, Bd.15, 1982, pp. 11-120.

9. Hermann Lübbe, Religion nach Aufklärung, Styria, Graz-Wien-Köln, 1986.

10. Articles by Ivan Lovrenović, Ivan Grubišić, Ivo Marković, Željko Mardešić, Luka Markešić i Bono Zvonimir Šagi Bunić published in daily newspapers since 1992.

4 4 4 4 4 Religious PReligious PReligious PReligious PReligious Perspectiveserspectiveserspectiveserspectiveserspectives



he dignity andvocation ofwomen is a

constant topic of reflection,and one that has acquiredparticular significance inrecent years. The CatholicChurch, too, is reflecting onthis issue, as well as on theplace of women in theCatholic Church in particular.To understand the officialviews of the CatholicChurch on a given issue, orthe position of a given subjectin the teachings of theCatholic Church, and thus ofthe position of women in theworld of today, one shouldrefer to the teachings of thechurch, and in particular to thedocuments of the 1962-65Second Vatican Council(Vatican II), the most recentassembly of all Catholicbishops, initiated by PopeJohn XXIII. Since his day,many additional documentshave appeared, a process thatis still on-going.

In its concludingmessage, Vatican II includesan observation of relevance toour subject: “The time iscoming . . . in which theadvancement of the vocationof women is being developed

to the full, in which women areoccupying their rightful place insociety, a position that they havenever previously enjoyed.”1

This article will give abrief overview of some of themost important documents onwomen in the Church,documents which indicate theofficial views of the CatholicChurch; to obtain a morecomplete picture of the positionof women in the CatholicChurch and the ecclesiasticalcommunity, however, we shallneed to consider some otheraspects that may shed light onthe true position of women inthe Church. In this I have drawnheavily on Ljiljana Matković-Vlašić’s book Žena i Crkva,2002, Multigraf, Zagreb.

1. IDEOLOGICAL BASIS FOR

THE ALIENATION OF WOMEN

WITHIN THE CHURCH IN TIMES

PAST

It has not always beenpossible to articulate theposition of the Church inregard to women in the wordsof the Second VaticanCouncil. Catholic thinkingwas affected by a powerfulideological faction that had anextremely pessimistic view ofwomen.2 St Jerome said thatwomen are the “gateway tohell”, justifying his views bythe fact that Satan chose Eveas the intermediary whowould lead Adam to sin. StAugustine’s views of womenwere no better; he regardedwomen as necessary to mensolely for the purpose ofbearing children, since anyother form of assistance a manneeded could be betterprovided by another man.These views were alsoadopted by St ThomasAquinas, who developed acomplete theory on the lesservalue of women. He basedthis on Aristotle’sunderstanding of humansexuality. In this view, the manis the true sex, the active

WOMEN IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Nataša Barolin-Pilsel, religious educator, Zagreb

1 See “Women, a sign of thetimes” in the Apostolic Letter“Mulieris dignitatem”, on thedignity and vocation of womenon the occasion of the Marianyear, John Paul II, Rome,15.8.1988, Kršćanskasadašnjost, Document 91,Zagreb, 1989, p. 5.

2 See Žena i Crkva, LjiljanaMatković, Kršćanskasadašnjost, Zagreb, 1973.pp.78-81.

principle, while woman is thepassive recipient, providingmerely the material for a newperson to be born. Woman isa “failed man”, born as theresult of some flaw in thesemen; “aliquid deficiens”, adefective being.3 Thisinadequacy and imperfectionaffects woman’s body and soulalike, as a result of which, inSt Thomas’ theory, she lacksthe moral strength to resistlust. As a result, she must bedeprived of every form ofpolitical responsibility, theright to teach, and of coursethe sacrament of the holyorder and every otherjurisdiction as well. Since theentire works of St Thomas area major authority for theChurch, his teachings onwomen became part of officialecclesiastic enactments andtherby defined their legal andliturgical position within theChurch.

It is obvious toeveryone nowadays just howgrave an affront to the humandignity of women Thomisttheology represents, andhow far it is contrary to theBiblical and Evangelicalunderstanding of mankind.The Church understood thatit was incumbent upon it torectify the injustice inflictedon women, and on humanityas a whole, as a result of

ignorance – and to do so as soonas possible. The Second VaticalCouncil took an important stepin that direction, with thepurpose of rectifying theposition of women in everyaspect of life – civilizational,cultural, economic, religious,political and so on. However,the impact of Vatican II led toonly very slow changes to theexisting mindset.

2. WOMEN IN CHURCHDOCUMENTS

Given the mass ofdocuments that should be readif this subject is to be adequatelypresented, and the limited spaceavailable, I have consideredonly the most importantdocuments, which are:a) Pastoral constitution“Gaudium et spes” (Joy andHope), Second Vatical Council,on the Church in the modernworld, signed by Pope Paul VIin Rome on 7.12.1965;b) Apostolic letter from JohnPaul II “Familiaris Consortio”(The Family Community) on theduties of Christian families in

the modern world, issued inRome on 22.11.1981;c) Apostolic letter from John

Paul II “Mulieris dignitatem”(The Dignity of Woman) on thedignity and vocation of womenon the occasion of the Marianyear, issued in Rome on15.8.1988;d) Pope John Paul II’s letterto women prior to theFourth International

Women’s Conference inBeijing, issued in Rome on29.6.1995;

The main features of thepromotion of the dignityand vocation of women inChurch documents are:

1.The equality of the sexesand the rights of women asa key element of socialjustice:

Bringing a reformistspirit to a consideration of thedignity and vocation ofwomen, Pope John XXIIIspoke of the need to enable awoman to work incircumstances thatacknowledge her needs andduties as a wife and mother.4

On behalf of the CatholicChurch, Pope Paul VI wasfirst to note that women“demand true and factualequality with men where theyhave not yet achieved it”.5

Speaking of theessential equality of all humanbeings in the pastoralconstitution “Gaudium etspes” (Joy and Hope) on theChurch in the modern world,the Conciliary Fathers were ofthe view that “it is a matter ofgenuine regret that the

6 Religious PReligious PReligious PReligious PReligious Perspectiveserspectiveserspectiveserspectiveserspectives

3 Summa theol, II, 11, q.149, art. 4.

4 See “Pacem in terris” in Stogodina katoličkog socijalnognauka, Kršćanska sadašnjost,Zagreb, 1991, p. 167.5 See “Gaudium et spes” inibid, p. 209.

Nataša Barolin-Pilsel, religious educator

fundamental rights of theperson are not yet secured, asin cases when a woman isdenied the right freely tochoose a husband, to accept acertain social standing or tohave the same opportunitiesfor education and culture asthose accorded to men”.6 Thedocument goes on to condemn“trafficking in women” andevery other form ofexploitation of women.7 Theequal dignity of men andwomen is one that thisdocument sees in particular inthe institution of Christianmarriage, calling upon menand women to foster true loveand value it highly8 (GetS,49).

The rights of women,however, should beguaranteed not only in thesecular world but also withinthe body of the Church. Thiswas understood by the bishopsassembled at the ThirdEpiscopal Synod in 1971(synods being gatherings ofbishops for the purpose ofstudying specific issues) toconsider issues of justice in theworld. They concluded thatwomen need to gain theirshare of responsibility andparticipation in society, and in

the Church as well.9 In hisinterviews published as the best-selling book Crossing theThreshold of Hope10, John PaulII acknowledges that in liberalsocieties, the twentieth centuryhas been characterized by therise in feminism, and that thismust be seen as a “reaction tothe lack of the respect due toevery woman”.

2. Rights and duties ofwomen:

In Pope John Paul II’sapostolic letter “FamiliarisConsortio” (The FamilyCommunity) on the duties ofChristian families in the modernworld, the rights and duties ofwomen are defined in the lightof the equal dignity andresponsibility of husband andwife. “This equality is realizedin a particular fashion in themutual dedication ofhusband and wife and thededication of both to theirchildren”.11 In creatinghuman beings as “male andfemale”,12 God bestowedpersonal dignity equally onboth men and women, andconferred upon them inalienablerights and duties.

Without here enteringinto a debate on the broad andcomplex subject of womenand society in all its forms, butconfining myself to a fewcentral issues, it must be saidthat this importantecclesiastical documentrecognizes that it is in thedomain of the family that thesocial and cultural traditionthat seeks to confine womento the role of wife and mother,and to prevent them fromhaving the same access topublic affairs as men, albeit inan appropriate manner, ismost pervasive.13 Thedocument concludes that theequal dignity andresponsibility of men andwomen fully justifies women’saccess to public service. Onthe other hand, though, theproper advancement ofwomen demands that their

maternal and family role berecognized in all publicaffairs and otherprofessions. That roleand the professions

must be closely linked,which can be achieved if akind of “theology of work” ismade more explicit and if theimportance of work inChristian life is promoted.The Church is of the view thatsociety should be so organizedas to ensure that wives andmothers are “not specifically


6 Ibid, p. 224.7 Documents of the SecondVatican Council, Kršćanskasadašnjost, Zagreb, fourth ed.,1986, p.655.8 ibid, p. 689.

9 Third episcopal synod, “Justicein the world” in ibid, p. 400.10 Mozajk knjiga, Zagreb, 1994,p. 227.11 See in Sto godina ..., no. 22,p. 532.12 Gen. 1,27.

13 See Sto godina ..., no. 23,p. 533.


compelled” to work outsidethe home and that theirfamilies may live and advancefittingly when they decide oftheir own free will to dedicatethemselves to their families.The view that the work of ahousewife is of lesser valuethan outside employmentmust be overcome.

3. Affronts to the dignity ofwomen:

The same documentmakes it clear that the way ofthought that sees the humanbeing not as a person but asan object, as an item to bebought and sold for thepurposes of selfishadvantage or sheer personalsatisfaction, is contrary tothe Christian message ofthe dignity of women.Women are the victims ofthis mentality. The Churchcondemns slavery,prostitution and pornography,particularly of an organizedkind, and all forms ofdiscrimination encountered ineducation, occupation, thedivision of labour, etc.

4. The dignity of womenand the order of love.Awareness of therevelation:

On the occasion ofthe Marian year, 1988, PopeJohn Paul II issued anapostolic letter entitled“Mulieris dignitatem” on thedignity of women in which,after citing the example of the

spirituality, virtue, holymotherhood and spiritualvirginity of the BlessedVirgin Mary, Mother ofJesus, he seeks to remindwomen of their dignity inthe order of love.14 Thedignity of women isdetermined by the order ofjustice and love for one’sneighbour. A person mustbe loved. Without theprimacy of love, it isimpossible to respondadequately to the question ofthe dignity and vocation ofwomen. In their extensiveand diverseinterdependence, womenas human beings are a

special value, as they are asindividuals in theirfeminine being, regardless

of education, health,employment or maritalstatus. Love that takes andgives confirms the truth ofthe person and of love. TheSecond Vatican Councilheld the view that theindividual cannot whollyfind him or herself withouta sincere bestowal of theself.15 The moral strengthof women, and theirspiritual power, is linked tothe awareness that God hasentrusted them to people ina special way, because oftheir feminine gender, and

that this determines their vocationin a distinct way. In this regard,the Church expects that in thesesombre times of ours the geniusof women will appear and willensure enlightenment for mankindwhen human solidarity ispreserved and when weightysocial responsibility is borne.16

5. Ecclesiastical solidarity withthe women of the world:

On the occasion of thefourth International Women’sConference, held in Beijing inSeptember 1995, Pope John PaulII sent an open letter to the womenof the world in which he appealedto them to reflect on the truthabout themselves.17 The Popeacknowledged the responsibilityof the men of the church who havecontributed throughout history tothe poor, unequal position ofwomen in the world, and regrettedthat this was so. At the same time,he repeated the undertaking thatthe Church would continue towork on the full liberation ofwomen from any form of slaveryand inequality. He thereforeadvocated a more powerfulpresence for women in politics,business, education and everyother sector of society. The Popeexpressed his admiration forwomen who, despite the objective


14 “Mulieris dignitatem”,KS, Document 91, pp. 82-8815 GetS, 24.

16 “Mulieris... “, p. 90.17 Carta a las mujeres, Vaticano,29.6.1995, Juan Pablo II, inDiccionario social i moral ,EDIBESA, Madrid, 1995, pp.441-451.


difficulties they face and thewidespread lack ofunderstanding, have been ableto find the courage to fight fortheir dignity to be respected.The supreme leader of theCatholic Church appealed tothe governments of the worldto put an end to all forms ofdisrespect for women and toinvolve them in the decision-making process and themoulding of the political andcultural identity of the humancommunity. The Pope calledupon women to revive theirmutual solidarity and to opentheir hearts to heal the woundsof the injured humancivilization.

3. WOMEN AND THE

NEW CANON LAW

When consideringwomen in the Church andtheir position in the churchcommunity, it is alsoimportant to mention canon(church) law. The new CanonLaw of 1983 is one of themore significant products ofthe Second Vatican Council.In the old Canon Law, therewere specifically wordedprovisions that barred womenfrom holding ecclesiasticaloffice. In the new Canon Lawwomen are rarely mentioned,but women are an integral partof the lay community, andeverything that relates to laypersons relates also to women.For example, Canon 230 # 3states that all lay persons,

which thus includes women,may carry out the tasks ofcommentator, cantor or otheroffices as prescribed by law.

Certain canons,however, specify male laypersons, meaning that theseexclude women. Canon 1024 ofthe New Canon Law is nodifferent from Canon 968 of theOld Canon Law, which providesthat only baptized men mayvalidly be received intoholy orders to becomepriests. In accordance withecclesiastical tradition,women may not take holyorders, and are also barred fromdiaconal office, which was notthe case in the first Church.

4. WOMEN AND THE

PRIESTHOOD

Women have never heldecclesiastical office of asacramental nature, be it in thepast history of the Church or thepresent day. The issue of thepriesthood for women has notbeen raised and resolved in theCatholic Church as it has in theReformed Churches, in many ofwhich women may carry outpastoral duties. But ever sincethe Second Vatican Council,there has been a steadily activeinternational women’smovement within the CatholicChurch, advocating theordination of women. TheGerman theologian Ida Raminghas written an account of thetwenty-five year struggle for theequality and liberation of

women, entitled The Women’sMovement and the Church.This book is almost whollydedicated to the issue of thepriesthood for women, andclaims that there is no forcethat can resist the movement.

In 1976 thecongregation for the doctrineof the faith published adeclaration, “Inter

insigniores”, which lets it beexplicitly known that theofficial church does not

permit the ordination ofwomen, but the debateover the issue has not come

to an end. In 1978, twothousand participants, bothmen and women, came to aninternational conference inBaltimore entitled “The newwoman – the new Church –the new priesthood”. Amongthe participants were manylay women and nuns who saidthat they felt they had avocation for the priesthood.

Given the lack ofspace, it is not possible to gointo greater detail here on theissue of the ordination ofwomen in the CatholicChurch. It has merely beenraised to highlight the fact thatthe issue of the ordination ofwomen in the Catholic Churchis treated as taboo in somequarters, as though it weresacrilege even to thinkwhether a woman could everbe a priest. However, the factis that the subject is underconstant consideration,constantly being discussed.



Here I shall just mention thetheologians Schillebeckx andHaya van der Meer, who saythat the issue should bepainstakingly studied onceagain to reach a genuinedecision on whether women inthe Catholic Church are reallyincompetent to receive thesacrament of holy orders.

It should beemphasized that the mostimportant thing is for womento fulfil their potential to theutmost in the apostolate andin creating the Christiancommunity, which need notnecessarily exclude theirserving as priests, buttraditional arguments are nolonger sufficient.

5. THE FIRST EUROPEAN

WOMEN’S SYNOD

A year afterthe Beijing Conference, thefirst European Women’sSynod was held in Gmunden,Austria, from 22 to 28 July1996, with the title “Womencan change the twenty-firstcentury”. The synod wasunofficial, and was attendedby more than a thousandwomen from thirty Europeancountries, with somerepresentatives of othercontinents too. The startingpoint of all the speeches wasa critique of patriarchalstructures and the patriarchalmindset. The participantsspoke of politics, theeconomy, their place in the

Church, spirituality, andpersonal development.

6. WOMEN AND THE LITURGY

The integrationof women into liturgical liferuns in parallel with theintegration of lay womenbelievers. Not so long ago, laypersons were mere observers, apassive audience before whoseeyes the liturgy was celebrated.Today lay persons are activeparticipants in the preparationand celebration of the liturgy,and women may serve asreaders, serve communionalongside a priest, and enjoyopportunities to deliversermons. But the old mindsetstill endures, and in the lifeof the parish communitywe more often find thetraditional outlook that keepswomen in the background,giving them no opportunities totake an active part in the liturgyother than singing in the parishchoir. In some parishes, even,again for traditional reasons,girls are not allowed to minister,but only boys. And it is true thatone may rarely hear a womandelivering a sermon during themass. Over time, the greater andmore active involvement ofwomen in the liturgy willeliminate the feeling ofdiscrimination, but change istaking place only very slowly.

7. WOMEN IN THE

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMUNITY

The present andfuture of women within theChurch depends not only ontheoretical debate, the officialviews of the Church, but alsoon their specific lives withinthe ecclesiastical community,the parish. The views thatprevail in agrarian, traditionalcircles are different fromthose in highly developedindustrial countries, andrarely have any connectionwith the official teachings ofthe Church.

The World Union ofCatholic Women’sOrganizations (WUCWO) hasconducted a survey on theposition of women in theecclesiastical community andthe attitude of the clergy tothem among its 36 million

members. The resultsof the survey indicate

that women have the feelingthat the clergy is mistrustful

of them, that there is a clericalmentality that still viewswomen through the lens ofstereotypical models:• a woman must be the

mother of as manychildren as possible

• she must passively andobediently follows thepriest’s instructions

• she cannot and may notindependently initiate orlead any action within theChurch, etc.

We cannot here goany deeper into the reasons forthese views, but merely pointout that they should be sought



above all in the education offuture priests in the seminary.What is certain is that thementality of the clergy mustchange. It should not beforgotten that many youngwomen are leaving theChurch, that they areindifferent to the Church andseek their faith in Christelsewhere, and that as a resulta different response is neededto their quest from the answerson offer in the parishes.

The involvement ofwomen in the life of theChurch depends, too, on thepastoral views of priests.They may work together withwomen to find new ways andnew solutions in accordancewith the specific existentialsituations with which theyshould certainly be familiar.For women, it is importantthat they receive a healthyreligious education andupbringing, which is not thesame as piety. Priests shouldbe familiar with the waywomen think and live, whichis far more complex todaythan formerly. Their personalproblems are no longerconfined to their husbands andchildren.

8. What doWomen Expect of the

Church?

In the view of theauthor of Žena i Crkva(Women and the Church),Ljiljana Matković-Vlašić, the


first and most important thingthat needs to be said is thatwomen expect the confidence ofthe Church, as the first step inany collaboration. Women donot wish to be treated asimmature persons who must beconstantly led and kept undercontrol. Nor do they want somekind of sentimental piety, whichis more an expression ofweakness and mistrust towardsthe world than of strength andconviction. Women expect anddemand a religious educationbased on contemporarypsychological, theological andsocial experience. Womenexpect of the Church to enablethem to take part in the life ofthe ecclesiastical community,which includes involvement inchurch structures: for how can aworking group be formed todiscuss issues that are importantfor all of God’s peoples withoutincluding a single woman?Women are no longer willing tocarry out only ancillary, more orless technical work in thechurch, or to dedicatethemselves solely to “gooddeeds”. Women are ready toserve, but freely, so that theirservice is a reflection not onlyof personal decision but also of 18 See “Women, a sign of the

times” in the Apostolic Letter“Mulieris dignitatem”, on thedignity and vocation ofwomen on the occasion of theMarian year, John Paul II,Rome, 15.8.1988, Kršćanskasadašnjost, Document 91,Zagreb, 1989, p. 5.

true personal creativeinitiative. Collaborationbetween women in theChurch, once fully realized,will be the focus for newopportunities, for as theSecond Vatican Council saysin its concluding message,“The time is coming . . . inwhich the advancement of thevocation of women is beingdeveloped to the full, in whichwomen are occupying theirrightful place in society, aposition that they have neverpreviously enjoyed.”18 AsLjiljana Matković-Vlašićsays, that time has alreadybegun.


or many people,when these twoterms, religion

and politics, are set inapposition in this way, theybring different associations tomind, sometimes so differentthat it is reasonable to askwhat the two have to do witheach other.

To avoid anyquandary, we shall respondfirst to ourselves, and then tothe wider circle of thereadership.

This must begin bypaying due attention to theterms themselves and themeanings they entail – whichwill be two broadly positedpremises followed by aconsideration of their mutualrelations; a conclusion thatfollows from this as regardslogical necessity andadequacy of substantivemeaning, and as regards thedemands of formal logic. Weshall now proceed direct tothe exposition.

a) The word religionis of Latin origin (religio)meaning link, connection,relationship. This meaning isnot fully clear, for it is whollypertinent to ask who is linked

with whom, who is forming aconnection with whom.

Certainly it is not amatter merely of a naturalelement, but the consciousaction of a personal being, asubject, which leads to the nextquestion: with whom or whatdoes that subject link or connectitself?

There are two possibleresponses to this question: a) theirregular and unwise: thepersonal subject links itself toan impersonal, inanimateobject, and b) the regular andrational: the subject links itselfwith another subject.

The first response is aone-way process, the secondtwo-way: it makes mutualitypossible. In colloquial terms,religion is dialogue, thecommunication between twopersonal subjects – theindividual who asks questions,who is on a question because ofhis inadequacy and dilemmas,and God who responds to thosequestions, by revelation out ofhis abundance.

In this, as in any otherconstructive dialogue, theinterlocutors, the co-participants in the dialogue ordiscussion are persons who openthemselves one to another; oneecstasizes and “comes out of

himself” and gives himselfover to the other unreservedly,in confidence, who respondsin kind, which is mutuality: Iam focused on you and opento you, and you to me. It is areciprocity of adequacy: youand I are equal partners andinterlocutors of the same rank.

But when what is atstake is man and his attitudeto God, the dialogue isconducted between unequalinterlocutors, and a process ofmutual enrichment takesplace: man partakes of thedivine, and God of the human,and the main or key dimensionof this enrichment is therestoration of the image ofGod in man, so that with theeyes of reason and of faithpeople come face to face withthe phenomenon of theirsonhood in God and theirbrotherhood in light and theblessing it confers, which is tobe understood mutually.Their brotherhood on thebasis of being one in bloodand of a shared naturalelement is no guarantee forthis higher brotherhood, thebrotherhood in God, but willacquire its meaning andjustification only in his light:the spiritual actor, the trueactor, is incomparably more


Archpriest Dr Dimitrije Kalezić, professor at the Theological College, Belgrade

RELIGION AND POLITICS

important than the naturalelement, which is relative. Onthe basis of his naturalelement, which is his physicaland chemical mass, manwould never be able to implydignity nor the values ofethics, aesthetics and the like;this can be based only on theimage of God which heinalienably carries withinhimself. Now, by establishinga religious mutual relationshipwith God, it is cleansed andrestored, and shines in all itspurity. Only then does heacquire his stereo dimension,by dominating the naturalelements to which he wassubject, and by becomingemancipated fromenslavement to them he gainssalvation: he thus becomescivilized to the uttermostdepths of his being, so deeplythat his image attains theradical foundations of thecreated being in his mostsecret inner self, and itsultimate peaks dominate thefarthest ranges and horizons ofthe natural, nurturingthemselves from both sourceswith that which is not of thisworld. Hence his dignity andvalue, which has anotherquality than the material.Here the idea is clearlymanifest that man is a projectlocated on earth, but that hisorigins, meaning and purposeare non-terrestrial orsupraterrestrial. Here lies thequintessence of ethics andaesthetics, which are not

merely disciplines of practicalor applied philosophy, but rathertheir being enrooted religiouslyin supramaterial metaontologyguarantees the reality of thesupraelemental quality, and ofman as the being that bears them,and this supraelemental qualityguarantees man’s personhood,selfhood, nature, as bestowednot acquired or earned. Thisleads us directly to the notion,the entire concept, that historyis not a purposeless, randomprocess, but a preordainedcourse of events in which peopleare participants: its purpose iseternity as a higher quality, noteternity as senseless infinity –the extension of the natural formof existence, not a nihilisticabyss or an end to everything –an anastrophe and fulfilment, notan end in catastrophe and cold,dark desolation

.

b) The word politics isof Greek origin (politikh), anddesignates the art of ruling ormanaging a city-state or society.As such, it entails the existenceof a society; not a group ofindividuals like pebbles piled upinto a heap on an asphalt surface,but a group of equals with duallinks: each in direct relationshipwith God, and each with oneanother indirectly throughChrist the Lord. They are allimbued from above, fromChrist, with the invisible ties ofmutuality. It is thus that thefamily unit, the tribe, the nation

– consanguinity, thecommunion of souls and ofspirits – are created. It is acommunity of the blessedhuman body and the body ofthe Church that engrosses,pervades, and ennobles thenatural structures (the family,the tribe) and through theminstates the individual incommunity with God, theangels and the saints.

In the modern age,and in particular since thetime of the French Revolution(1789-1794), politics orpolitical ideas have becomefragmented andcompartmentalized: this ispartiality (pars = a part, nota whole) or partyhood.Hence the notion of the party– the political party – isnothing holistic (holoj=whole, entire) but has apartitive or partial meaning.Politics as the total socialorganism, in its historicaldimension, and politics asparty-based antagonistictendencies, have not beenproperly or wisely identified.If the first is politics, thesecond is mere pettypoliticking of limited,pragmatic agendas, where thewhole is ignored or sidelined,or action is even directedagainst the whole instead ofworking towards it andcontributing to it.

Now, from thisconglomerate of antagonismsand new contradictions,surging up like a turbid


Archpriest Professor Dr Dimitrije Kalezić

underground river burstingforth, their destructive torrentripping apart the constructivepeace of the external and thepersonal interiority, there risesto the surface, in all its realityand earnestness, the questionof whether there is a place forreligion in this, what is its role,what are its noble fruits andare they in fact able tomanifest themselves.

In response to this byno means easy or simplequestion, we shall passgradually from the domain ofpremises and take a step intoa new court – the conclusionthat logically derives fromthem, necessarily and formallycorrect.

a) Religion andpolitics are not one in the least,but they have the potential inpart to overlap andinterpenetrate. This is thedomain of their symbiosis(sin/with + bioj/life =common life, coexistence):religion is realized in theindividual and in society, andthese are categories from theworld of political reality.

The beneficialinfluence of religion entersinto the world of our realityfrom the world of higherreality, the Kingdom of God,and flows into man,transforming all of creation

that opens itself to him andreceives him into itself. Thepersonality, as the deepest andinnermost category, receives thishigher content, which renewsand regenerates it, and itmultiplies that experience, likea radiation into every dimensionof its activity: the relationsbetween the family and thewider society, the temporal andthe eternal, the individual andthe collective, the personal andthe group; its thoughts andfeelings, its words and deeds, itsmotion and its stillness.

These manifestationsare particularly visible in thecase of the diversity of varioussocieties, and people of differentfaiths and traditions. Religiontakes on different forms: as theChurch, the divine-humancorpus in which no one is eitherdenied or ignored, but neither ishe absolutized or over-emphasized; as a religioussociety, in which all its membersare connected by some invisiblebut powerful inner link – byreligion.

In addressing thisquestion, we need to be clearand definite: religion as the linkbetween man and God postulatesa relationship or realizationbetween its subjects. This is atits most marked in Christianity,and in the act of the divineEucharist both the Orthodox andthe Roman Catholic Churchestranscend that link, and theirbelievers, their communicants,in taking communion enter intoblessed identity with Christ. It

is in the Gospel according toSt John (17,3) that we canconceive in the most directmanner what is life eternal:“that they might know thee,the only true God, and JesusChrist, whom thou hast sent”,who is thereby the onlysalvific, real mediatorbetween God and man (I Tim.2,5). This link exists,mysteriously active, in thevisible matter and actions ofthe Eucharist. Like thecirculation of the blood in thenatural organism, this is theblessed circulation in theheavenly organism, the higherreality. In the beneficialmetabolism of that organismthe individual, the image,identifies himself with hisoriginal, God, Christ, in thesense of blessing, of course,not naturally, physically orchemically. Here theimmortal personality andvalue of the Kingdom of God,of heaven, is guaranteed, therealization of which beginshere on earth in mutual humanrelations (see Lk. 17,21: “Forbehold, the kingdom of Godis within you”) though it is notof this world (Jn. 18.36) butcomes to it and indicates themeaning and future course inthis world.

This approach to thehidden and refined, subtlevalue of religion here and now(hic et nunc) is wholly non-political. In the domain ofpolitics, we have to do withthe calculated and purposeful,



pragmatic and useful, short-term and immediate, so it isunderstandable that an abyssshould yawn between therealistic and the possible,which then raises a series ofquestions of honesty andsincerity, good intentions andmorality, heart and mind,feelings and thought. As longas one does not blush inembarrassment and one’spsyche is not filled withfeelings of shame at one’sinsincerity of purpose orbungled miscalculations, therecan be no question of religiouslife, of religious valuesgrounded in life, be itpersonal, family or social life,pulsating and coming to theboil. We thus have manypeople who describethemselves as religious, but itis lip service only that theypay, for their hearts – thattotality of the interior life –are far from the Lord (seeChrist’s words in Mt 7,21).They do not cry out to theLord in their vocations, norcan they, but call upon Godin their self-regardingisolation or worse, turn awayfrom God, towards Satan. Itis as though their short-termview is not even focusedwhere it should be; what isneeded is the internal about-turn that is genuine conversionin its original meaning(conversio), and this does notcome from the natural, frombelow, but from above, fromthe supernatural; not from the

impersonal matter of theelements, but from the personalGod the creator, direct orthrough His transmissionsthrough the angels and the saints.Without those relations andsupra-relations, we have neitherthe source nor the currents of thebeneficent streaming through themass of the material and thestrata of the historical being andpolitical life.

For the Christian toshow himself to be worthy in theworld of his intimateconvictions and to bear the fruitsof true repentance (Mt. 3,8; Lk3,8), he must be true to Godfrom himself and throughhimself. He will thereby renewhis image of God, which raiseshim above the elements of thematerial and creates thesupernatural designation of hishumanity, which is his god-likeness, not his likeness of thedevil or direct nature-likeness.

The views justexpressed are unusual andunconventional. If the readernotices this, it is a good thing;his thinking does not follow theworn tramlines of receivedwisdom, nor does it float on themeniscus of shallow waters, butrather he raises his mental andspiritual gaze towards thedistant heights and lowers it tothe unplumbable depths, linkingand merging in his person thedimension of height and depthwith that of breadth andsuperficiality. This means thatwhat he receives from above,from the world of higher values,

he then pours out into nature,into his surroundings,ennobling his milieu, that isthe very essence of the real,quite simply of everything.Only in this atmosphere canthe question of honesty andresponsibility, quality andmorality, and similaraxiological questions beraised and fostered.

This is merely amatter of weighing one’sconscience, balancing thescales – that which is withinus and that which is above usand not of us but as thoughdirected against us. What weplace in the scales is our everydeed, word, thought anddesire. And another question:to what extent have weopened the sluicegates ofhigher values and receivedand adopted them? If we havedone so, each of usindividually and all of ustogether, so much the betterboth for mundane sociologyand the domain of politicswhich covers the earthlymilieu and for party members,for this renders them sounderand wholly, and the individualand partial is mastered withinthem and their agenda. If thisis not clear to them, nor can itbe familiar either. This is thepath and the way that leadswhither it should – to the



supra-political and intransientvalues of the eternal.

Life without values isfactionalism; and political lifewithout the higher values of theheavenly meaning can never bea value-based form of life, butnone other than the inert,undirected undulations of thesocial mass; there is no place forthe axiological there. Above thelevel of that form of life theblanket of the heavens hasdescended low, and is so thickand closely-woven that not asingle ray of the supracelestialvalues can penetrate through tothem. Such a life has nopolitical quality or animation,but is an amorphous and quality-less physical and chemical mass.

In the life of thereligious Slav being – and manis in essence religious (homoreligiosus) – the opportunityshould be made available to theinner attributes or qualities tomanifest and realize themselvesto the full.



n every pastc i v i l i z a t i o n(ancient Greece,

ancient Rome, Persia, China,Scandinavia) women havebeen clad in the black cloakof subordination. Theirsituation can be described asone of total dependence; ifmarried, they were dependenton their husbands, and if not,then on their fathers, brothersor guardians. Their positionalso varied depending on theirsocial milieu, class or race. Itis fair to say that women wereregarded as chattels, that theyhad no rights of inheritance orownership, no right to enterinto contracts or to seekdivorce. Generally speaking,their moral and spiritual rolewas very minor, and theirsocial and economic role waseffectively non-existence.This remained the case untilthe end of the nineteenthcentury, when certain changesfor the better began to takeplace where women wereconcerned.

In the deserts ofArabia to which Islam wasrevealed, the position ofwomen, particularly those oflower social standing, was atits very nadir. It is sufficient

to recall that it was seen asshameful for both family andtribe to bear female children,which were seen as a misfortuneand a burden. As a result, girlbabies used to be buried aliveto rid the family of the burden.

In the darkness thatenfolded the world, the echo ofthe sublime words resoundedthrough the deserts of Arabia,bringing with it a new, exaltedand universal message:

“Mankind! Fear your Lord,who created you of a singlesoul…”1

The scholastics whosought to interpret this ayat say:“It is believed that there is not asingle (sacred) text, old or new,that deals with the humanity ofwomen in all domains, that sostrikes one with its courage,eloquence, depth and originalityas does this sublime ayat.”2

The idea of Islam,which came upon a world inwhich women were in such adesperate situation, was to bringabout a revolutionary change in

their status. They are treatedas fully responsible humanbeings, and the Qur’anaddresses them directly,without any intermediary, as inthe sura entitled An-Nisa’(Women).

Hazrati Hava (Eve)

Eve is the mother ofhumanity and the soulmate ofAdam. Together they wereplaced in Jannat, the Gardenof Eden, to enjoy as theywould on condition that theydid not touch the fruit of justone tree. “Then Satan causedthem to slip therefrom andbrought them out of that theywere in…”3 “So he led themon by delusion; and when theytasted the tree, their shamefulparts revealed to them, so theytook to stitching uponthemselves leaves of theGarden…. . . They said, Lord,we have wrongedourselves…”4

Both are equally toblame for the sin theycommitted, both receive thesame punishment ofbanishment from the Garden,


Fatima Omerdić, theologian, Sarajevo

WOMEN IN ISLAM,WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCETO BOSNIAN SOCIETY

1 Qur’an: An-Nisa’ (Women), 1.2 Badawi, Jamal, Woman Underthe shade of Islam, Cairo,1997, p.11.

3 Sura Al-Baqara, 36.4 Sura Al-A’raf, 22-23.

and both are pardoned equallywhen they repent. In Islam,there is no original sinpertaining to women.

Women and Islam

One of the importantcharacteristics of Islam is thatit treats men and womenequally. They are God’screation, treated in the Qur’anon a basis of equality anddignity, which entails theirhaving the same rights andduties, whether spiritual,social, economic or politicalin nature, with the differencesthat Almighty God bestowedupon them. Men and womenare directed to complementone another, not to competewith one another.5 Womenhave the same duties andresponsibilities to AlmightyGod as do men, as thisQur’anic ayat makes clear:

“Men and women who havesurrendered, believing menand believing women,obedient men and obedientwomen, truthful men andtruthful women, enduringmen and enduring women,humble men and humblewomen, men and women whogive in charity. . . for themGod has prepared forgivenessand a mighty wage.”6

If one considers womenthrough the lens of their socialstanding, one may differentiatethree levels at which they shouldbe addressed:a) As child and adolescent:

as soon as a girl child is bornshe acquires the natural rightto life. In the past,unfortunately, this was notthe case, as already noted.It is the sacred duty of herparents to bring her upwithout treating herdifferently from boys.Education is sacrosanct forevery believer. It is thus theduty of parents to providetheir children with asatisfactory educationwithout differentiatingbetween them.

b) As wife: Islam recommendsmarriage, and bans any formof extramarital relationship.Marriage is a firm contractbetween a man and awoman, based on freedomof choice. Women have theright to choose theirhusbands and no onehas the right to coercethem in this choice.Since in Islam marriage isnot a sacrament but acontract, it follows that itcan be broken, which giveswomen the right to divorce.7

c) As mother: Islam accordswomen high respect and an

honourable position insociety. Benevolence toone’s parents comessecond only to worship ofAlmighty God.According to a traditionof the Prophet, s.a.w.s.,benevolence should beaccorded first to one’smother and then to one’sfather, while another ofhis sayings was: “Heavenis under the feet of one’smother”.

The answer to thequestion whether Islamicreligious laws permit womento be involved in and have aninfluence over the economicsituation of the humancommunity is in theaffirmative. Women have theright to own property and todispose of it as they will.They may inherit property,acquire it as a legacy or gift,or earn it themselves. Withinmarriage, it is incumbent

upon the husband tosupport his family.Women have nofinancial obligations

towards their husbandsother than to protect andpreserve their property.Although Islam has apreference for women to bemothers and marital partners,as their two central roles insociety, there is nothingprohibiting them fromcontributing to society byworking. Their talent is whatcounts in the selection of an


5 Sura Al-Baqara, 128.6 Sura Al-Ahzab, 35

7 Murtada, Mutahheri, PravaŽene u Islamu, Zagreb, 1997.,str.163-201.

Fatima Omerdić, theologian

occupation, which means theyshould seek work wherevertheir assistance to society ismost needed.

Finally, a brief wordabout the role of women in thepolitical life of thecommunity. In Islam, womenare an inseparable part of thesocial community, and anequal member in the politicalsense. They have the right tovote and to be elected. Fromthe earliest days of Islam, theydemanded their rights asguaranteed to them by theQur’an and the traditions ofthe Prophet, and did nothesitate to demand themof the ruler himself,thereby influencing hisdecisions. The pages ofhistory are full of thenames of women who stoodout for their work, theircourage, their eloquence, theirwisdom, the strength of theirfaith, and their dignity. InMuslim societies today, too,there are many women whoare a firm bulwark for theircountry and state.

These are the basicstandards and fundamentalrights and duties of women asprovided by Islamic religiouslaw. During the long cyclesof Muslim civilization thequestion has often been askedwhether women are in factbeing treated as the Qur’anand Tradition decree. Theresponse is that they are not.There are two aspects of theresponse to this question: a)

the conservative, restrictive andtraditional and, b) the liberal,Western-oriented. Neither ofthese fosters the spirit of Islam;on the contrary, they are creatinga huge gulf between Islamicteachings and practice. Thesituation today, therefore, is notthe reflection of Islam andshould not be regarded as such.But despite these two trends,Muslim women have alwaysbeen afforded greater protectionand enjoyed a better positionthan their sisters in the West.

Muslim women in Bosnia

Both written and oralsources have much to tell usabout the traditionallyactive presence of Muslimwomen in almost every

sphere of life in this part of theworld. Numerous waqfnamas ordeeds of endowment testify tothe waqf goods of Muslimwomen as spouses, daughters,sisters, mothers. The same is tobe found in court records andother documents, as in theprescribed books and writingson them. As an example I shallcite the case of Nefisa, the wifeof Hadži Mustaj-beg Dženetić,who became the Sarajevomutesellim in 1735. On sixoccasions she addressed theSultan with the request to restorethe property confiscated fromher after the death of herhusband. These six requestswere met with six Imperialfermans in which the Sultancalled for the issue of the

inheritance to be resolved inNefisa’s dispute with hermother-in-law and others whowanted to usurp her property.8

Oral tradition (lyricpoems, sevdalinka, ballads)recount the books they writeand send, tell of the maktabsor primary religious schoolsthey attend, the religiouscalligraphy they embroider ontheir embroidery frames. OldMuslim chroniclers such asBašeskija, Muvekkit andothers recount that girls weretaught not only by muallimsor male religious teachers butalso by muallimas or womenteachers.9

When Bosnia cameunder Austro-Hungarianoccupation and the Europeancivilizational milieu, the wayof life of the Muslims ofBosnia and Herzegovinabegun to be Europeanized.Following World Wars I andII, this trend becameincreasingly powerful. For thesake of emancipation, whichincidentally was wrongly andpartially understood, Muslimwomen in Bosnia altered theirway of life, to the detrimentof their faith, tradition andhuman dignity, on whichIslam lays so much emphasis.


9 Šukrić, Nijaz, Odlikovanjeza muallimu od prije stotinugodina, Sarajevo, 1991,Muallim, no.12, p.27

8 Archives of the GaziHusrevbeg Library


It was the family, as the basisof society, that suffered themost, and the consequences ofthis can be seen to this day.

After a long andunequal struggle, Muslimwomen have succeeded inwinning their equalparticipation in social,economic, cultural andpolitical movements. All thevarious foreign influences,conservative milieux, politicalnarrow-mindedness and warshave been unable to destroythat vital human spirit. Themisfortunes to which Muslimwomen have been subjectedfor centuries have enrichedthem with experience andgiven them the strength tofight for their rights, rightsguaranteed them by bothreligious and secular laws.

Bibliography

1. Ahmed, Akbar S., Living Islam, London, 199?2. Mutahheri, Murtada, Prava žene u islamu, 1997.3. Žena u okrilju islama, trans. Aždahić Sidik, Iranian

Cultural Centre, Sarajevo4. Begović, Mehmed, O položaju i dužnosti muslimanke

prema islamskoj nauci I duhu današnjeg vremena,Belgrade, 1931.

5. Badawi, Jamal A., Woman Under The Shade of Islam,Cairo, 1997.

6. Sherif Abdel Azim, Woman in Islam, Cairo, 1998.7. Penava, Senija, Izvori I literatura o problemima

emancipacije muslimanske žene u Bosni I Hercegovini,Supplement of the Historical Institute, Sarajevo, 1981, vol.XVII, no.18, pp.273-284.

8. Huršid, Ahmed, Porodični život u islamu, Sarajevo,1979.

9. Soorma, C.A., Islam’s Attitude Towards Woman andOrphans, England

Hodžić, Kasim, Položaj žene u islamu, Sarajevo, 1940., 22-23.



ne of theinteresting andwholly expected

consequences of theincomparable advance in andaccumulation of humanknowledge that characterizesour times is the maturing of theawareness that no individualcan be equally well informedon advances in every domain– which in turn has led tofamiliarity with the fact thatthe individual may be anexpert in one or severalkindred domains – while asregards every other branch thelay person has to rely on theknowledge of experts whohave dedicated themselveswholly to the branch inquestion. Experts in variousfields are (or should be)masters of the entire spectrumof information relating to theirdiscipline – and are usuallyaware of the arbitrary andindeterminate nature of thetheories that are regarded bythe uninformed public asunchallengeable truths and thelast word in knowledge. Thisis true, too, of both thephenomena that are thesubject of this article, or rather

the mutual relations of whichform its subject – with thedifference that both thephenomenon of religion and thatof politics are so very muchpresent in the everyday life ofthe modern individual that itseems to all of us that we knowexactly what is meant when wesay religion or politics, and thatboth are regarded as a kind ofpublic good that has not yetbeen privatized orprofessionalized. While, on theone hand, it is a matter forrejoicing that there are at leastsome areas of human action andknowledge where the greatmajority of people are notwilling to renounce their owninvolvement and submit to thereductive status of passiveconsumer of the scientific truthsdispensed by experts but toacquire information appropriatefor public consumption whensuch information has been dulyprocessed, on the other hand thisjoy is dimmed by the regrettablefact that the degree to whichmodern man is familiar withthese branches over which heclaims rights, or pays lip serviceto such rights at least, is barelygreater than his knowledge of

those disciplines that havelong since been irrevocablesurrendered to the experts.

After conductingendless discussions on thesubject of religion withvarious people in variouscountries, it seems to me thatit would not be over-pretentious, nor a falsegeneralization, if I were to saythat most of my interlocuterswere simply making use of afew arbitrary theories,hypothesis and catch-phrases.Thus, for example, whilereligious people have thehabit of boring theirinterlocuters with assertionsdrawn from the arsenal ofpostulates and dogma of theirown tradition (and whatreligious tradition worthy ofthe name would acknowledgeits own arbitrariness, its owncontingency, the extent towhich it is determined orconstrained by social andhistorical factors, when thehuman need to compensate forhis transience, relativity andmutability by claiming theright to or possession of theunchallangeable truth of thetotal, absolute, definitive and

A PERSONAL ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND THECOMPLEX RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION ANDPOLITICS

Eliezer Papo, assistent at the Jewish University in Jerusalem, rabbi in Sarajevo

MODERN MAN AND KNOWLEDGE IN GENERAL, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO

FAMILIARITY WITH THE PHENOMENON OF RELIGION AND POLITICS


immutable lies very roots ofreligious thought)1, atheists onthe other hand are inclined todismiss (with the air of anEnglish aristocrat telling hisservants they may withdrawwith the words “you aredismissed”) any seriousdiscussion on the subject ofphenomena that they see asderivative and the fate ofwhich is sealed, with somecontemptuous remark aboutthe primitive nature of thosewho still believe, in thetwenty-first century, intheories conceived in caves inthe cold dawn of humankindor, at best, in the dark ages.But after wasting the first fewminutes of single-mindeddiscussion on generalizations,prejudices, theories,hypotheses and catch-phrasescobbled together forconsumption by the religiousor atheist masses, it turns outthat the majority of peoplehave never given enough timeto these phenomena to be ableto express some personal viewbased on reflection orweighing the evidence fordifferent theories. One of thebest examples of this endlessrepetition of the same mantrasis the phrase, increasingly

common in these parts, of thepoliticization of religion, oftenbased on the naive convictionthat there are clear boundariesbetween religion and politicsand that these boundaries mustnot be crossed. Unfortunately,things are nowhere near sosimple. If religion were to befully, consistently andu n c o m p r o m i s i n g l ydepoliticized, every traditionwould be left without the massof norms and dogmas that shouldbe consigned to the rubbish binof history as the product of themundane politics of a givenperiod. Equally, if politics –which is the art of managinghuman communities – were tobe consistently purged of theinfluence of religion and thereligious this would necessarilyresult in our being stripped ofthe majority of the institutionson which modern law and themodern state are based, andwhich are indeed among theachievements of religion. Thereare few instances of any twoconcepts so intimatelyinterconnected as are religionand politics. Religions havecreated states – but states havealso created religions. Byrevolution or gradual influence,religions have changed the waystates are ordered – but

similarly, the apparatus ofstates has often altered,adapted or subsumed entirereligions.

A word or two about themost widespread forms ofmonotheism and politics

If we concentrate onthe five most widespreadmonotheistic religions today– Judaism, Christianity (in itsthree manifestations ofCatholicism, Orthodoxy andProtestantism) and Islam, weshall see that in at least threeof these (Judaism, Orthodoxyand Islam) politics are part ofthe very fabric of the religion,to such an extent that thepolitical elements cannot beeliminated without tearing thewhole construct apart, whilein the other two cases(Catholicism andProtestantism) it can be saidthat politics are not anessential part of their creed,although it may often haveseemed, throughout theirhistory, as though it were.

Judaism and politics

In Judaism, the Torahis regarded as a set ofrecommendations for


1 Here I shall cite just three classic theses that are a commonplace in the tradition of the three greatmonotheistic religions, and which tellingly illustrate the absence of will in each tradition to view itselfthrough the eyes of history and to perceive its own cultural contextuality. Judaism is the first legal andphilosophical system that stubbornly insisted on total and uncompromising monotheist. Unable to acceptthe idea that monotheism itself is the consequence of social and historical evolution (to put it in religiousterms, monotheism is the truth that was revealed gradually), Judaism makes frequent appeal to an assertionto be found in rabbinic homiletics, and which Maimonides incorporated into his codification of Jewish law

Eliezer Papo, assistent at the Jewish University in Jerusalem

individuals and forvoluntary associations ofcitizens, a collection ofpersonal convictions or ananthology of wisdom – apre-ordained DivineConstitution providing thebasic directions for theestablishment of a legalstate community (not ametaphysical one) thatregulates both issues ofdoctrines (the prohibitionof polytheism or idolatry)and of alternative systemsof political administration (aconfederation of tribes or amonarchy; a non-hereditaryjudge as the head of theconfederation or a hereditarymonarch as the head of amonarchy), of checks oninstitutions and office-holders(which is one of the basicfunctions of a prophet), issuesof social justice, equalitybefore the law, taxes and,finally, issues relating to civiland criminal law.

The extent to whichthese provisions areillustrative (which means theyshould be followed in thespirit, not to the letter) or total(which means that they mustbe literally implemented in

every case) is the subject ofundiminished interest anddebate between the variousJewish legal schools. All theseschools, however, agree that

the Torah is not a collection ofarticles (principles) of faith,but of precepts that regulateevery sphere of the life of thecommunity (in idealcircumstances, of the state)including the relativelyminor issue (minor bycomparison with the others)of dogmatics.

Islam and politics

I shall give precedenceto Islam over Christianitybecause of the major similaritiesbetween Islam and Judaism inthe self-concept of the twofaiths. Like the Jewish attitudeto the Torah, Islam does not seethe Qur’an as a handbook forthe personal spiritual evolutionof the individual, but rather asthe constitution for thecommunity that it created in itsearly years and bequeathed tofuture generations as a legacy tothe state. Consequently, theQur’an deals with the regulation(in broad outline, at least) ofevery sphere of public and

private life, just as does anyother constitution. To carryout the Islamic precepts on thepublic law is as important forthe believing Muslim asfulfilling those that prescribehis personal obligations beforeGod. Islamic law, theshari’ah, does not deal solelywith issues of doctrine,therefore (such as whether ornot there is life after death,whether the destiny ofhumankind is predetermined,and so on) or ritual (wudu orthe ritual ablution beforeprayers, the formal prayersthemselves, halal meat and thelike) but also with issues ofcriminal law. The issue ofwhether these precepts areillustrative or totalitarian isthe subject of a discussion thatshould be initiated withinIslam to a much more centralextent.

Christianity in general andpolitics

In Christianity, inconformity with the fact thatit arose as the product of manycenturies of fusion betweencertain Jewish, Greekphilosophical and pagan


(see Chapter I, Prescriptions on idolatry, in his Mishna Torah) according to which everyone was originallymonotheist and in possession of the true tradition about God, only later, at the time of Enoch, to begin toworship the sun, the moon and the stars in the same way that they honoured the monarch by honouring hisministers, which finally led to their heirs wholly forgetting the king and continuing to worship only hisministers. There is a phrase in Christian theology that in itself is sufficient to shed light on the typicalreligious claim to its own absoluteness clad in Christian robes:“Anima humana de su natura christianaest” – “The human soul is Christian by its very nature”. In its own historicity, Islam attempted to takethis to the extreme with the Qur’anic claim that Ibrahim/Abraham and the other patriarchs of monotheismwere Muslims, and with the assertion that everyone is born a Muslim, but that his parents cause him, withtheir human traditions, to stray from this simple, natural truth.


attainments, there are groundsfor two different concepts. Inthe first, Christianity should beconstrued and constructed as astate community orderedaccording to the divine precepts,while in the second, Christianityis to be understood andimplemented as the relationshipbetween the individual, or groupof individuals, with God, aimedprimarily at salvation frometernal torment in the nextworld. It seems self-evident thatthe first concept owes itspragmatic, practical and this-worldly foundations to classicalJewish sources, while the otheris indebted for its foundations tothe widespread or universalbelief of the Hellenistic world(including at least two streamsof post-classical Judaism:rabbinic Judaism and theEssenes) in life after death,which led to the conviction thatthis world should be seen as atemporary state on the basis ofwhich one’s status in the future‘true’ eternal life will bedetermined. In this secondinstance, the influence ofPlatonic notions of the world asdivided into the world of theideal (the world of ideas) andthe world of reflections andillusions (the material world) isplain to see.

At various periods andin different contexts, Christianshave favoured one or another ofthese two concepts. At the timeof the Early Church the clash

between two groups wasalready evident: on the onehand, the Jewish Christianswho gathered around Jesus’brother James, and other like-minded followers throughoutthe Hellenic world (bothJudaic and proselytes), whoinsisted on an ethnocentricconcept of Judaeo-Christianity (a people definedby a common law, who livedin expectation of the re-establishment of the idealorder – community, people/state – run according to theDivine law; and on the otherhand, the universalists, whocame together around thelater apostle Paul, who laidthe emphasis on personalsalvation in the next world, tobe gained by personal faith,not by the establishment of aspecific state and legalsystem. With time, under theinfluence of various socialand historical factor, theJudaic element became aminor current in the sea ofChristians, and it is fair to saythat, particularly during theperiod of the Romanpersecutions of the Christians,the second concept camewholly to dominate the first.Once the Roman emperorshad embrace Christianity,however, and then turned itinto the state religion, thingschanged fundamentally, andthe Roman Empire overnightbecame the Holy Roman

Empire, God’s kingdom onearth. The schism of theHoly Roman Empire intoEastern and Western, andthe breakup of the WesternEmpire into a whole seriesof newly-created kingdomsand principalities thatfollowed, led to thecreation of totally differentcontexts in which the twoalternative concepts ofChristianity foundexpression in differentways.

Orthodoxy and politics

In addressing themost widespreadconceptual forms ofChristianity, I shall beginwith Orthodoxy, since heretoo the political is sointimately interwoven withthe religious that it is closerto Judaism and Islam thanCatholicism andProtestantism. In theEastern Roman Empire thefirst concept was alwaysprevalent, in whichChristianity is not ametaphysical communitybut the reflection of theKingdom of God on earth.As a result, Constantinoplewas proclaimed the SecondRome or the SecondJerusalem (the heir, that is,to the two previous capitalsof the Kingdom of God).The peoples who accepted



Christianity from Byzantium(such as Serbia, Bulgaria orRussia) themselves strove tocreate an Empire that would beheir to the Byzantine Empireand thereby to Rome orJerusalem. The Slav Orthodoxdynasties therefore sought at allcosts to relate themselves to theholy Byzantine dynasty – andnot a single Slav Christian kingcalled himself, say, king of theGreeks – as yet another way ofensuring the sense of continuityand identification of his empireor kingdom with Byzantium/Rome/Jerusalem. The SerbianTsar Dušan, whose empiregradually displaced theByzantine Empire, calledhimself Tsar of the Serbs andGreeks, while the RussianTsars, once the Slav Orthodoxcountries to the south hadfallen, one after the other,under Ottoman rule, wouldoften emphasize their linkswith the Germans, and throughthem with Byzantium, whichwas intended to demonstratethat they were the direct heirsof the Kingdom of God onearth, and that Moscow was theThird Rome.

In Orthodoxy, then,this concept of the nationalchurch which became a reality,in the past, in a specific state andwhich is now the guardian of thevow to restore the ideal state ofaffairs, remains to this day thekey element in the concept andself-perception of these

Christian churches, as theirvery names testify beyonddoubt: the Greek OrthodoxChurch, the SerbianOrthodox Church, theMacedonian OrthodoxChurch, the BulgarianOrthodox Church, theRumanian OrthodoxChurch, the RussianOrthodox Church, and soon.

Catholicism and politics

After the fall of theWestern Roman Empireand the rapidChristianization of thenewly created barbarianprincipalities andkingdoms, the Holy Seeemerged as both thespiritual and secular(political) power. ThePope was simultaneouslythe secular leader of hiscountry and the spiritualleader of the entireCatholic world, whichmade him first amongequals in relation to thebishops of other regions,and Prince of Princes inrelation to other secularrulers. The Popes becamerulers in accordance withthe interests of the ideology,the Vatican oligarchy andtheir personal interests. Itshould not be forgotten,however, that secularprinces, too, tried to use

every kind of influencepossible over the selectionof the Pope, and at timeseven had a pope removedfrom office and anotherinstated in his place. It istrue to say, though, that thefact that Catholic countrieswere no longer united undera single secular ruler led tothe emergence of theawareness that different‘national’ states were aninevitability, and that theChurch was thesupranational spiritualcommunity. Over time,then, a certain modusvivendi came about in theCatholic world in whichsecular and ecclesiasticalauthorities existed inparallel and fulfilled twodifferent functions. Theking and the aristocracywere called upon to run theaffairs of this world, whilethe Church’s concern waspreparation for the next.This implied that the Churchhad the right to exerciseinfluence over rulers ineverything that had to dowith the next world, such asholding the proper beliefs,carrying out the prescribedrituals, the persecution ofheretics, and so on. Theboundary between thedoctrinal and the mundanewas not clear even then, andmuch of European politicsat that time could be



reduced to the power strugglesbetween the princes of theChurch and the secular princes.

Protestantism and politics

It is hard to imagine thehistory of Protestanism, fromLuther and Zwingli to thepresent day, without the supportof the German secular princes.The purely religious reformistmovements that precededLuther (such as the Albigensiansand the Waldenses), which didnot enjoy the support of thesecular authorities, were unableto hold out against the power ofRome. The background to thesupport of the German princesfor Luther and Protestantismwas primarily of a politicalnature (the only obstacle to theircomplete sovereignty andautocracy was the Pope inRome), and only secondarily ofa doctrinal nature. It would bemuch the same, later, when at theheight of the political strugglebetween the Vatican and thethrone of England, theindependent Anglican Churchwas created by imperial decree,a church that differed at thattime from the Roman CatholicChurch only in that its bishopsserved the throne of England notthe Pope.

In the freedom of theNew World, the transplantedProtestant churches carried stillfurther the principle ‘untoCaesar the things which are

Caesar’s; and unto God thethings that are God’s’,which already existed inCatholic Europe.2 It wouldnot be inapt to mention atthis point that the principleof religious freedom in thevarious states of Americadid not originally relate tonon-Christian communities.Religious freedom meantprimarily the freedom ofChristians from the Vatican,or in other words thefreedom of variousProtestant denominations tolive according to their ownconsciences (for which oneshould read: according totheir own interpretation ofthe Bible). Thanks to thefact that in much of the NewWorld there was a cleardistinction from the verystart between variousdenominational forms(which were a matter ofindividual choice and notimposed by law) and thesupradenomina t iona lgeneral Biblical values

which were frequentlyincorporated into the lawsof individual states. Thisled to a powerful awarenessof the division intodenominational laws(which were a personalmatter) and the universaldivine laws (somethingsimilar to natural law)which it was incumbentupon the state to imposeupon all its subjects. Later,freedom of religiousconfession was extended tonon-Christian communitiestoo (in the classical Anglo-Saxon formalistic legalmanner, the fact that theconstitution did notexplicitly state that this rightrelated solely to Christianswas exploited to this end).All in all, in the UnitedStates today the issue ofaffiliation to a certainspecific denomination is nomore important thatbelonging to a givenbadminton club. This doesnot mean, however, that thesupradenominational ,universal religious valuesdo not have a central impacton American politics. Attimes there are attempts tofind as comprehensive aname as possible for thissupradenomina t iona linfluence of the religious, aname that would embrace asmany different sub-groupsas possible, such as for


2 A New Testament sayingascribed to Jesus, to whichthe adherents of theuniversalistic Paulineconcept make frequentreference, and which isaimed more at personalsalvation than at the law andthe formation of a specificstate.


example ‘Judaeo-Christianvalues’, thereby evoiding theinfluence of a specificdenomination on politics andensuring the influence of thereligious in general.

Conclusion

Differing concepts ofthe state, religion and theirmutual relations evolvedaccording to various social andhistorical circumstances indifferent parts of the world. Thedenial of the political nature ofthe ethno-national conceptembedded in the veryfoundations of Judaism or of thevarious Orthodox churches, orthe denial fo the fact thathistorical Judaism and historicalIslam do not see themselvesprimarily as salvationalreligions (focused on thepersonal salvation of theindividual in the world to come)but also as communities with adivine mandate to create amodel society that will be runentirely according to the divinelaws, does not contribute todiscovering a consensualsolution that could lead us fromperpetual conflict to the easeand comfort of peace.

Any future commonendeavours in mutual respectand convivencia of the membersof different religious or ethno-religious communities,particularly in Bosnia andHerzegovina, must take fullaccount of the existence of thisundisputed political dimension


in these religious traditions.The author of these lineswould like to believe that inthe future, thanks to an agreedand coordinated humanist butalso theocentric interpretationof the norms and deeplyrooted forms of the differentreligious traditions using theinner patents that exist inevery religious tradition, itwill be possible to achieve farmore than has been achievedby various other methods today.


AL-IMANU BILLAHI –Belief in the One God

t is best and mosthelpful to embark

on the consideration of anyissue to do with religion byrecalling the main reason forthe Revelation: THELIBERATION OF MANFROM SUBJECTION TOANYONE OTHER THANALLAH, THE ONE GOD,THAN WHOM THEREARE NO OTHER GODSAND WHO IS THECREATOR OF ALLTHINGS.

The belief that onlyAllah is God entails aconsistent profession of all theattributes that belongabsolutely to God. Amongthese are authority,judgment and guidance –the attributes that are thesubject of this paper. On theother hand, the most sublimegift bestowed on humankindis the opportunity to be slavesto none other than the TrueCreator and to fear none otherthan Him.

Since people areneither the creators norowners of this world, but have

received in trust as a giftfrom Allah that which theyare and have, they have noright to establish their ownlaws and courts, nor todetermine and executepunishment. The right tomake Laws, earthly andheavenly alike, and to judgeaccording to those lawsbelongs only to Allah and tonone other. Judgment isbefitting none other thanHim, and a Muslim maytherefore have no otherjudge.

AR-RISALA – theMessage (Revelation of theLaws) and KHILAFAT –Law and Order

To anyone who isinsufficiently familiar withIslam, all this may sound tooabstract, too idealized, andinapplicable to everydaylife. However, the time ofthe Revelation and theProphet’s s.a.w.s. rule overthe ummah, the communityof Muslims, followed by theyears of rule by the fourrightly-guided caliphs, andeven to some extent the fourfour centuries of Islamfollowing the Revelation ofthe Qur’an, showed to what

extent it was feasible to ruleaccording to the khilafat, Allah’sLaw and Order bestowed upon thepeople. It was feasible because itwas comprehensively and fullyrevealed and explained, andfurthermore, that it was preservedin its true form, kept free ofchange and human influencethrough a strict process ofpreserving, memorizing andtransmitting the Qur’an andHadith (the sayings and practiceof the Prophet Muhammad,s.a.w.s.). These mechanismthemselves were no humaninvention, but somethingexplained and decreed by God.During the first four centuries ofIslam the Muslims kept more orless consistently to the revealedLaw and the principles thatguaranteed their properapplication.

IJTIHAD - Analysis

And yet, there were manydoctrinal divergences,disagreements and clashes, even inthe early days of Islam. The originof these conflicts of opinion wasthe very extent of the knowledgethat the Prophet Muhammads.a.w.s. left behind him, whichgave rise to countlessuninterrupted debates on whatwas the most correct of several

ISLAM AND POLITICSAL-IMANU BILLAHI – Belief in the One

Remzija Pitić, theologian, Sarajevo


instances of reliable evidenceon the large number of issuesrelating to the lives andconduct of the followers ofIslam. But rectitude of faithand niyyat (intention) on thepart of the scholars andbelievers of that time waswhat prompted and guided allthese debates in the quest forthe proper and just way tobehave in every aspect of thelives of the Muslims, alwaysin order to please God. Thefirst four centuries of Islamwere a period in whichanalysis, or ijtihad, was at itspeak – the effort of scholarsto reach a proper view on thebasis of all the evidenceavailable to them and to offerthis view to the believers. Thebelievers, for their part,regardless of the madhhab orlegal school they followed,would seek advice from allknown scholars, adoptingthose rulings that were themost faithful and well-grounded, while the right toissue fatwas (legally validrulings) and the calling offaqih (shari’ah jurist) couldbe acquired only by an alim(scholar) who was generallyacknowledged as a mujtahid(analyst of the laws).

TAQLID – Blind imitation(and the consequences ofthis fallacy)

In the fourth centuryof Islam there began the

period of taqlid (blindimitation), whichincreasingly became thenorm and led to theossification of Islamicthought as a whole,retarding the entire Muslimcommunity as a result. Theblind, rigid andunshakeable adherence to asingle scholar, theachievements of individuallegal schools customs, so-called scholars, forebears oranything or anyone else,combined with lethargy,vanity, ignoring andkeeping silent about thetruth, was unacceptable forIslam and disastrous for theMuslims. This was aboveall because once a distortedform of knowledge that wasin fact error, fallacy orfalsification had beenaccepted, or tacitlyapproved, it continued tospread and to be passed onas correct from generationto generation.

The most damagingfeatures that began toappear, one after another,during this period of historywere: an increasinglypronounced distinctionbetween secular andreligious authority; theemergence of academicelitism; thecommercialization ofreligious teachings; theemergence of ill-informedpseudo-scholars and theirinnovations; the appearance

of idolatry, cowardice anda submissive attitude on thepart of jurists towards therulers; the development ofscholasticism, rhetoric andthe artificial discovery ofcontradictions andillogicalities in the

statements of others.Here one may quote

from the great scholar ofIslam Al-Ghazali (C11 CE),who described theseretrograde processes asfollows:

You should know thatafter the Messengerof Allah s.a.w.s. thekhilafat wasmaintained by thefour rightly-guidedcaliphs. They wereleaders and scholarswho feared AlmightyAllah. They werejurists who had adeep understandingof Allah’s laws andwere activelyinvolved inaddressing problemsand issuing justjudgments. Theywere so competentthat they rarely hadto seek the help ofjurists in managing agiven situation, andwhen they did so, itwas for the purposeof consultation. Afterthis, the khilafatpassed into the handsof people who did not


Remzija Pitić, theologian

deserve to be rulersand who lacked thecompetence even toformulate their owndecisions. They wereforced to seek the helpof faqihs. Theyfostered friendshipwith scholars so as toensure their help in thepassing of legislationof all kinds. True, therewere some scholars ofthe same stamp asthose of previousgenerations. Theymaintained a clearvision of the demandsof the faith, and whenthey were wooed byambitious rulers withvarious inducements orthreats to accept theposition of qadi (judge)or administrator, theydid not compromisetheir integrity.

The people ofthat time saw the highregard in whichscholars were held andthe attempts of rulersand leaders to attractthem. The desire toacquire reputationamong the peopleand privileges fromrulers encouragedpeople to enter thefield of education andto aspire to issue legalrulings. They becamecourtiers to the rulers,seeking entry into theirpolitical circles and

attempting toacquire positions ofauthority. Somesucceeded, othersdid not. Those whosucceeded were notfree of the stain ofsubjugation anddegradation. Thiswas a process inwhich jurists, whohad previously beenhighly honouredand sought-after,became thedevalued seekers ofthe patronage of theruler.

At thisperiod, however,there were somewho, throughAllah’s mercy,remained sincereand honest scholarsof Allah’s religion.But the majority ofthose who began todeal with legalissues and to issuefatwas did sobecause of theburning need for

such persons innew regionsand under new

governance.At the dawn

of the emergence ofthis new type ofjurist, there cameprinces andministers who werepleased to listen towhatever people

said in regard to thefundamental principles ofthe faith.

EROSION OF THEKHILAFAT

This has been cited inorder to shed light on the processof erosion of the khilafat. In fact,it is more accurate to say that allforms of the Islamic statehenceforth were political systemswith some elements of thekhilafat, since there could nolonger be any question of thekhilafat in the true sense of theworld. During the period of therule of the “inspired” caliphs andsultans, the aspiration to just,shari’ah-based rule was moremarked, but certain periods ofhistory will be recalled as timesof injustice and repression, inwhich the shari’ah wasinterpreted by pseudo-scholars tosuit the will of the ruler of thetime. One common phenomenon,prompted by the need ofindividual sultans or persons inpositions of political power foruniversal legitimacy, was for themto proclaim themselves as caliph,but almost all of them ignored orrevised the authenticinterpretations of the Qur’anicayats that speak of this notion,including the passages that saythat only a descendent of theProphet’s tribe, the Qureish, maybe caliph. This fact aloneindicates the heart of the problem,the terms listed at the start of thisarticle – iman, niyyat, ijtihad – for



it is certain that theproclamations of all these“caliphs” were approved byleading Islamic jurists, whowere clearly departing fromthe letter of the shari’ah in sodoing. They must have beenaware of what they wereapproving and declaring to beauthentic, so that they cannotin fact be called ulama (al-’ulama ’ – heirs to themessenger of the faith – hadtwo fundamental tasks: likethe Messenger of Allah, tounmask all forms ofdivergence from the Way ofAllah, and to witness to theTruth, Allah’s Word,regardless of theconsequences, which the firstnecessarily entailed). Yetanother interesting trick,particularly popular in theOttoman Empire, was toconcoct the genealogy of thechosen caliph so as to trace hislineage back to the family ofthe Prophet himself. (Thispractice later became knownamong the common folk, too,in the tekkes, so that inpresent-day Turkey everyshaikh of a dervish order whowas half-way self-respectingpossesses a genealogy tracingback to the family of theProphet.) With time, for allthese reasons, the title ofcaliph was completelydevalued, regardless ofwhether it belonged to thesultan himself or to somereligious leader appointed byhim. The principal and

inviolate power of the statewas the power entailed bythe notion of sultan, themilitary and politicalleader. The title of caliphgradually lost all its truemeaning, and everyindependent dynastic rulercould proclaim himselfcaliph over the region heruled.

This hypocrisy andlust for power became thecause of the emergence ofradical, fundamentalist and“reformist” movements,chiefly among people whoin the ardour of their faithdid not want to have anypart in such games withIslam. These movements,although they often aroseunder the influence ofintrepid and incorruptiblescholars of Islam, as a rulechanged into somethingutterly different and, on thepretext of waging waragainst taqlid, gave rise toa new form of taqlid in theform of blind obedience tothe leaders of insurrections,uprisings and secessioniststatelets, which were thecause of much bloodshed.This same process is stillvery much present todaythroughout the Muslimworld.

Given the lack ofspace, this must concludethis section. It is importantto note two things:

- for centuries now,for sincere followersof Islam, politics hasnot been primarilya struggle for theirown notion ofpower, or for theprinciples on whichsociety shall beorganized as apolitical body, norfor power itself –for them, politics isprimarily anostalgia for theearliest times ofIslam and itsmotivating force,and a bitter strugglefor survival basedon these ideas,regardless ofwhether they live ina so-called Islamiccountry or not;

- the process of moraldecline in Muslimsocieties, as brieflydescribed above,through the gradualdeparture from theshari’ah (bearing inmind that in Islamthe entire moral lifeof the individual isshaped by theprescriptions on thepermitted and theforbidden, that is bythe shari’ah), isparticularly visiblein the Islamic worldtoday, and can be ane x c e l l e n t



illustration of thepoints outlined.The world todayhas Islamicr e p u b l i c s ,m o n a r c h i e s ,emirates and soon (all of whichare un-Islamicsystems), but thetendency tomisuse religion topolitical ends and

to ruleaccording to

principles thatdiffer from theletter of theshari’ah arecommon to allthose states.

THE MODERN ERA:ISLAM AND POLITICSIN BIH

THE BOSNIANREALITY

The shari’ah divides theworld into three domains:

- dar ul-islam – thedomain of peaceand Islam, the ruleof Allah’s laws, andtrue liberty;

- dar ul-harb – thedomain of war, inwhich Muslims aresubject too p p r e s s i o n ,

persecution andthe inability toprofess their faithin public;

- dar us-sulh – thedomain whereMuslims are notin an absolutemajority, orwhere Allah’slaws do notpertain, butwhere Muslimsare free citizensand where theirfaith, honour andlife are not injeopardy.

Bosnia and Herzegovinacertainly falls into the thirdcategory, dar us-sulh, andindeed has done so, withinvarious types of polity, formore than 150 years. If inaddition we bear in mindthe facts previouslyenumerated, this period maybe in a way regarded as amarkedly long one. In thelong term, it would be a realmisfortune for the Muslimsto lose the rights that accrueto them in such a domain,just as they are being lost tothe adherents of other faithsin BiH. It is to be hoped,however, that this will nothappen, given that it did notdo so during the period ofatheist communist rule,when times were hardest ofall for believers. It is hard

to believe that such harsh timeswill come again.

SECULARISM

Secularism is contrary tothe theology of Islam, contrary tobelief in the One God, and as suchunacceptable to Muslims. Tosupport secularism is to departfrom the faith, and Muslims shouldunderstand its existence as anecessary evil, a coercive situationthe end to which should be aspiredto.

Bosnian Muslims, like themembers of other faiths, if they sodesire, must fight for the right todetermine their own destiny, aboveall by striving to inculcate into thepolitical system and laws of thestate the moral values and elementsof the shari’ah that will advancethe interests of our community. Wemust bear in mind that it was thecommunist authorities thatentrenched secularism in theConstitution of BiH. Earliersystems, even the Serbianmonarchy, did not impose totalsecularity. Thirty-one memberswere appointed to the CentralBoard of the Yugoslav MuslimOrganization in 1919; all of themwere believers, and the Mufti ofTuzla, Hajji hafiz Ibrahim ef.Maglajlić, was unanimouslyelected as chairman. There is nospace to go into greater detailabout those times, but one detailis worthy of recall. The CentralBoard of the YMO included in itsmain manifesto the demand:“…that the provisions of theStatute of Religious and



Educational Autonomy of theMuslims of Bosnia andHerzegovina be extended toother parts of the state whereMuslims live, and that theinstitution of shari’ah courtsbe introduced there too andthat Muslims be assured linkswith the khilafat.” Can oneimagine today the likelihood(a shari’ah court above all) ofpresenting the Council ofMinisters of BiH or theNational Assembly ofRepublika Srpska with suchdemands?

In the worst-casescenario, if we are compelledto live in a secular state, thisneed not necessarily meanthat we shall introduce thedictates of secularism into thefields of the economy,education, culture and otherdomains of life, and renouncethe sublime moral principlesand achievements ofmonotheism.

HOW CAN THEISLAMIC COMMUNITYOF BIH TAKE PART INPOLITICAL LIFE FORTHE BENEFIT OF THECOMMON GOOD, AMORAL SOCIETY ANDMUTUAL CONFIDENCEBETWEEN RELIGIOUSCOMMUNITIES ANDTHE STRUCTURES OFTHE STATE?

T h eresponse to this syntacticallycomplex question is in fact

very simple, and is composed ofthree basic points, listed at thestart of this article: true faith,or IMAN, pure NIYYAT orintention, and IJTIHAD bycompetent scholars.

True faith –Iman – is a prerequisite forbeing a Muslim, so any furtherexplanation of this point isredundant.

Pure niyyatand the sincerity of religiousscholars in anything thatappears to be for the benefitsociety ensures certainty ofoutcome both for the Muslimsand those with whom theycollaborate.

Competence informing judgments and actingaccording to the letter of theshari’ah is the only true path forthe operation of any Islamicinstitution, regardless of theenvironment, polity and socialcircumstances. For Islamicscholars and for Muslims as awhole there is no other way, butthis is also the best way foranyone with whom Muslimscollaborate on whatever basisit may be. Any compulsion onreligious scholars to departfrom Islam injures not onlythemselves but also otherbelievers, and indeed those whoare seeking to exert thatcompulsion. Coercion of thiskind is regarded as violence,and Islam does not tolerateviolence.

It is violenceto demand of the IslamicCommunity, as of the otherreligious communities, thatthey speak out against theirown convictions on the issueof religious education inschool. It is violence todemand of the IslamicCommunity that it upholdsecularism and the non-interference of religion inpolitical life. It is violenceto demand that nothing besaid about certain issues ofIslam that some see asproblematic (jihad, theIslamic state, unity amongMuslims, polygyny, and soon). It is violence toprescribe the way in whichreligion is presented by themedia.

Finally, letus take a look back at thehistory of Bosnia andHerzegovina since Islam firstcame to these parts.Everything – the people, theirbooks, their buildings –testifies to tolerance,common living, religiousfreedom and human rights,and that at a time when suchthings were unimaginableanywhere else in Europe.Islam, then, is one of theprincipal reasons foreverything that was fine andgood in our past.



BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Books:- Shaikh ul-islam Ibn

Taymiyya, Najboljaoporuka (1999),Saudi HighCommission forAid to BiH

- Al-Ashkar, O.,Uticaj vjere nao s l o b o đ e n j ečovjeka (1999),Saudi HighCommission forAid to BiH

- Hišam, Dž.,“Evropa i Islam”(1989), SupremeCouncil of theI s l a m i cCommunity ofBiH, Croatia andSlovenia

- Purivatra, A.,Jugoslavenskam u s l i m a n s k aorganizacija upolitičkom životuKraljevine SHS(1974), Svjetlost-Sarajevo

- Mevdudi, E.,Islamski pokret(1999), Hedijja-Mostar

- Al-Alwani, T.,Etika neslaganja uIslamu (1996),Saudi HighCommission forAid to BiH

- Karčić, F. andKarić, E., Šerijatskopravo us a v r e m e n i mdruštvima (1998),Law Centre,Sarajevo

Periodicals: - Lewis, B., “Političko

tijelo” (199?), Islamska misao,

Sarajevo- Latić, Dž., “Islam i

d e m o k r a c i j a ”(1994), Takvim for199., IslamicCommunity of BiH

- Latić, Dž.,“Savremena državas o c i j a l n o g‘blagostanja’ iprednosti Islamanad njom” (1998),Takvim for 1999,Islamic Communityof BiH

- Durmišević, E.,“Institucija hilafetau OsmanskomCarstvu saposebnimosvrtomna Bosanski Ejalet(Bosnu) (2000)”,Takvim for 2001,Islamic Communityof BiH



Introduction

he issue of the roleof women in the

mission of the Church raises,first of all, the question oftheir place and involvement inthe life of the church. In otherwords, it is not a distinctquestion in itself, but isindissolubly linked to anumber of other issuesconcerning our ecclesiasticalrealization and creativity. Thefact is that everything issignificant, and thateverything is approachedcollectively, that is in creativeassembly and sober self-possession, demonstrating tous all the meaningful beautyof forming theologicaljudgment. This leads us to thefirm knowledge that divinityacquires its fullness in God theLogos Jesus Christ, andalways bears within it thebeauty of theophany,cognition of God and divinecommunication. God the Sonis thus the sole true measureof knowledge in faith, whichalways entails the experienceof putting to the test and oftrust. When we reach, throughHim and with Him, theunexaminable depths of Christas the measure of all things,

we become truly creatively freeand able to transcend every formof partial understatement. Weapproach everything with fullresponsibility, and seeeverything in the ecclesiasticalreality of personality andcommunity. In this way, weattain the fullness of truth, loveand freedom, and have a provenexperience of life in faith in thetrue manner. Thus we are trulyabove all understatement andsuperficiality.

With the unity andcommunity of the church inproper proportion, we upliftourselves above all forms of theideological encumberment thataccompanies man’s variousattempts to resolve this issue ina non-ecclesiastical, one-sidedmanner. Here it must be madeclear that the major problem inthis particular arises whenemphasizing the idea ofequality, which is false,impossible and groundless. Ifthis were to be accepted, itwould mean deliberatelyoverlooking the ecclesiasticalreality of unity and community.It would lead to a non-creativediscrepancy, since it would besubjugation to ideologicaltransports. God-given diversityshows us all the beauty ofcreativity that is incessant, for

we are all in a constantprocess of quest anddiscovery. With thismeaningful measure ofconstant advance, creativityelevates itself to the blessedstate of incessantperfectioning beyondconflicts and contradictions.In this way our many diversegifts and talents manifestthemselves as the motiveforces of unity. They are nota reason for separation andestrangement, but they may beif they lose their creativeresponsibility. If a gift ortalent is not understood fromthe perspective of service, butis seen as a privilege, one thenforgets the evangelicalyardstick that “We that arestrong ought to bear theinfirmities of the weak”(Rom. 15,1). Here it must beclearly understood that to bearthe infirmities of the weakalways means to uplift him,and not impotently toconciliate or applaud him.Service is thus a deliberate,salvific reality, and as such isalways superior to approval,but neither can it ever becoercion.

It is only if we imbueevery discussion with meaningby means of good judgment

THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE MISSIONOF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHArchpriest Dr. Ljubivoje Stojanovic, professor at the Theological College, Belgrade


that we can liberate ourselvesfrom minimalism inrealization. Otherwise, weshall frequently put obstaclesin our own way on the path ofproper consideration and trueunderstanding. In this way wehave crushing facts in the caseof women and their role inlife. Everything is reduced, inmany cases, merely to “sinfulEve”, with endlessdisqualifications anddenigrations. The theology ofthe Church gives everything anew dynamic and its truemeasure with the clearemphasis on two parallels:Adam-New Adam/Christ andEve-New Eve/the VirginMary. If everyone were tounderstand this, all theinadequate formulations offeminism and anti-feminismwould be seen, because oftheir partial superficialitywhich always insists onseparation, which is alienationand estrangement.

THE REALISM OF GODTHE SON ANDHUMANIST IDEALISM

The creation of theworld and of man clearlydemonstrates to us themeaningful measure of lifeand man’s creativeparticipation in it. Here thepermanency and reality of theDivine call and appeal to manto share in the deed by full

self-realization and ultimategeneration and rule inbenediction is plain to see. Herethere is no separation of man;rather man is the common namefor both Adam and Eve. Theorder of genesis does not meanany division into more and lessimportant, but is clear evidenceof unity in diversity. Woman isthus not consigned to a lowerstatus, but rather the order ofcreation showed the meaningfulgraduality of God’s love, for hecreates us all that we might besaved, from the beginning. Asa result, the creation of Eve fromAdam’s rib is a sign of unity, notof woman’s secondary role.Only then was the process ofcreation of man as a being ofcommunity completed. Ofcourse, if we approach all thissolely from the genderperspective, we cannot attain itsultimate meaning, for we arehampered by hidden despair,shame and separation.Everything is half-hearted, mereempty words, for it hinders asolution with its constantquestioning without thewilligness to judge all thingscreatively. Until those divisionsare overcome, and man isregarded as a communal, God-composed being, nothing canbecome any better. Thecontradictions remain, anddivisions are never-ending in aconstant state of pleadingotherness and rebuking the otheror finding fault. This is thecondition of the frightenedlosers whom we see from the

very beginning with Adamand Eve after the Fall (Gen.3,91-4). We must liberateourselves from this. Insteadof impotently coweringbehind the other in fear ofretribution, we must liberateourselves from all this andcollect ourselves, both withinand among ourselves. Only inthis way can we depart fromfear and impotence andbecome progressive creators,liberating ourselves from theimpotence of aggressivity,which arises from the “needfor indifference”1, failing tonotice the proper order ofself-sacrificing love, which isthe guarantee of unity andcommunity.

Selflessly giving ofourselves always liberates usfrom selfish demands forourselves alone and constantreproach of others. In thissense, the guilt of Eve does nothold good, for it is a shareddeed on the part of man ashusband and wife, not of justone of them. It is important toknow this for forming futurejudgment in all matters and forconstant and genuine upliftingin the joy of life. It is essentialemphasize that concord andcommunity are destroyed bythe post-lapsarian excuses ofAdam and Eve, who had someconcord in their sinful deed,

1 See Pavle Evdokimov,Žena i spasenje sveta ,Cetinje 2001, 185.


Archpriest Dr. Ljubivoje Stojanović, Belgrade

but afterwards separated,exculpating themselves.This clearly shows us all thetragedy of the sinfulimpotence that weakens andseparates. It is evident, then,that conflicts arise in a stateof sinful disorientation. Inthis state, everyone battlesonly for himself, not seeingthe other in the proper waybut approaching everythingin a state of weakness. Theway the conflict developsimposes the illusion ofequality as the measure ofsuperseded conflicts, but infact it is a case of failure tocollect ourselves and createa community. All this givesrise to further conflicts, andeverything is riven andreduced to static dualism.And then fine words aboutthe victory of good over evilare concocted, but theinexhaustible fear andimpotence in the face of thedanger of evil remains, forevil is wrongly accorded thesame degree of power asgood, which is false. Andhere are founded all thesentimental humanism thatcannot rise above meregender, and of which theultimate scope is theunstoppable and unwinnablebattle for human rights,where the decisive step isalways lacking and whichare constantly out of phase.Here man is simplydevalued, reduced merely tothe element that fights for

survival and losing the joy ofexistence. This is the state towhich the Apostle Paul referswith his admonition on asituation that we create forourselves by accepting conflictsin which “all seek their own, notthe things which are JesusChrist’s” (Phil. 2,21). Thesewords do not mean the mereimposition of Christ, but are theindicator of a Christian approachto everything, and a call to usChristians to behave moreresponsibly in all things:responsibly in the sense of living

and witnessing, nor merelynominal affiliation, for the

Christian option and convictionalways means a new way of life.It can never be torment andcoercion of oneself and threatsagainst the other, but is theconstant readiness for feats infull optimism and responsibility.

The salvific reality offaith raises us above allshortcomings, in the full realismof God the Son. This is anincessant process, enabling useffectively to liberate ourselvesfrom all impotence and

weakness in the blessedenterprising fullness of deed

and talent. The guarantee of allthis is Christ, in whom we allcome together and throughwhom everything is fulfilled.Thus all of us, men and womenalike, are “all one in ChristJesus” (Gal. 3,28). This realityof faith is emphasized byMaximus the Confessor in hiswell-known “Responses to

Talasi” where he clearly saysthat in Christ all divisions areovercome for “He manifeststhe true essence of humannature, free of the particularfeatures of the male andfemale sex at the deepest andmost unique level.”2 Thesewords should be understoodwith sober awareness, not asa negation of difference, notas equating one with the other,but as a transcendence of thereduction of everythingmerely to gender, whichwould inevitably lead tofurther dilemmas andimpotence. It is not a matterof equality but of community,of unity, for “total equality isimpossible, a kind ofhermaphroditism would thenrule”.3 We thus see thatthrough God the Son weconstantly advance fromglory to glory, “until we allattain to unity of faith andcognition of the Son of God,to the perfect man, to themeasure of growth of thefullness of Christ”.

It is important to notehere the words of PavleEvdokimov that “incarnationdetermines the place and roleof woman” (who became the

2 Pravoslavna riznica obraku i porodici , Belgrade1998,1423 P. Poposki, Brak i ženakroz istoriju u buduđnost ,Svetosavlje 1940,29-40.



Theotokos – the Mother ofGod, in the Church) .4 Here,then, is the true measure of thefulfilment of the reality of theSon of God. Nikola Kavasilaexplains this to us with thewords: “Incarnation is notmerely an act of the Father,His Son and His Spirit, but isalso the act of the will andfaith of the Holy Virgin. Hewanted His Mother to bearhim as freely as he gladlyincarnated himself. “ 5 Thewords of the Virgin Mary:“Behold the handmaid of theLord” (Lk. 1,38) indicate thetrue meaning of the co-actionand freedom of God the Son.Here the Virgin Mary, as theNew Eve, shows herself to beperfectly free and obedient inthe resolution of all dilemmasand conflicts. Knowing this infaith, we are freed from allthat is incompletelyexpressed, for we seeeverything in the true way.The divine service of theChurch indicates this to us inthe most explicit and vividmanner by addressing theVirgin with the namesHeaven, Paradise, Gateway ofthe Church. It is this“liturgical realism that giveshistory its very specificreality, expressed in these

names.”6 For this reason StGregory Palamasunambiguously states that for usGod “is everything that wasrevealed in the heavens aboveand on earth below through theMother of God. “7 It is vital toknow this so as to transcend thepartiality of condemning Eveonly, and through her womenonly, in the shared failings andmisdeeds of man, that is of menand women together.8 Thisignorance resulted inemphasizing “excessivemasculinity”9 in forming alljudgments about man, whichinevitably turns into oppositionand needless conflicts, in which

all those who fight for theequality of the sexesunsuccessfully exhaustthemselves. Only wheneverything is approached fromthe salvific perspective can itbe seen how much man hasdevalued himself, imaginignthat creativity is possible onlythrough self-affirmation. Thebasic error is to reduceeverything merely tosociological and biologicalcategories.10

The Churchcontinually announces truefreedom, with the cleartestimony that it is “the onlycriterion for attaining theblessing of tranquillity andlove,”11 and of course thecommunity as completion.This truly takes place in the“liturgical fullness where eachacquires his significance,whereas if we separate onefrom another we become theinactive parts of something.”12The coming together incommunity of free individualsis thus the true measure of allthings, and there is in this nogeneralization orimpersonalization but rathereverything is blessedlybrought together in salvificreality. Only thus can weunderstand the meaning anddynamism of the relations of

4 Evdokimov, op.cit, 11.5 Vladimir Loski, Svesveta, Teološki pogledi, 1974,45.

6 Evdokimov, op.cit,30.7 St Gregory Palamas, Lord light my darkness , Belgrade.1990,10.8 The early Christian fatherTertullian over-emphasizes theguilt solely of our first motherEve, declaring women as awhole, and only them, as guilty.He addresses women in theseterms: “You should always be inmourning, your eyes should everbe full of repentant tears, so asnot to forget that it was you whocaused the fall of the humanrace.” He mitigates hisdespairing pessimism somewhatwith the statement that “theVirgin Mary saved the virginEve”, drawing the parallel withthe words: “Eve tru sted theserpent, but Mary trustedGabriel, so Eve ’s sin ofcredulousness was mitigated byMary in faith”. (see JovanStančić, Socijalni položaj ženau istoriji , Svetosavlje 1934, 16;Mitropolit Mihailo, životopisPresvete Bogoroice sa naukomPravoslavne crkve o njoj , NoviSad 1886,21).9 Evdokimov, op.cit,155.

10 ibid,13-14.11 ibid, 188.12 ibid,12



God the Son, and thinkthrough every humanism withdevout love of man, liberatingourselves from every form ofhuman idolatry. It must beaccepted, however, that not allof us always attain thisfullness, and as a result wehave many attempts andaimless quests. This dividesthe participants, making themadversaries and not associates,which is the unhealed woundof the human relationshipsthey are deprived of.Certainty of faith and joy oftrust and confidence.Nowadays, for this reason,“the literature of despair andof the absurd has such success,for it corresponds to the turnof mind of people today.”13 Inall this the best and most tragicrelationship is that betweenmen and women when it isdeprived of the concord andcooperation of God the Son.The ecclesiastical andbibilical reality reveals all thisto us in the finest way, andproclaims to us the goodreality, both eschatologicaland historical, and thepossibility of harmoniousrelations and the achievedcommunity.

THE BIBLICALWITNESS

From start to finishthe Bible clearly demonstrates

to us the God-given communityof man with God, man with hisfellow man and man withhimself. Here “man” is plainlyboth male and female, with theprecisely emphasizeddifferences of talent, gift,endowment, but the entiredeliberate unity is the appeal toman to be the lord of allcreation; to participate in theDivine creativity by creating andrealizing himself, by receivingand giving to all things. Thiscreative dynamic does not ceaseeven after man’s lapsarianabandonment of the blessings ofparadise. He is no longer in thefirst state of joy, but continuesto create, albeit “in the sweat ofhis face” (Gen. 3,16). God doesnot abandon him, but seeks himand finds him; does not threatenhim but promises him salvationand sets man’s creativity inmotion. Here male and femaleboth remain within the name ofman, although the sin hasdisrupted and divided them.Woman is not in a state ofsubordination, but is a co-creator in deed, and there we seeAdam and Eve as parents, asfather and mother, which clearlyshows the difference in theircalling and their gifts, which donot divide but unit them ascreators. On this basis thecommunity continues to grow,not only to perpetuate theirlineage, but rather everythingmanifests itself as the fulfilmentof the blessing of life on theuniversal level of the humanrace. It is not, therefore, mere

multiplication, but life in thejoy of the blessing of God’sgifts. Through all this weclearly see and understand thewomen of the Bible, Sarah,Rebecca, Rachel, as a goodparallel with Abraham, Isaacand Jacob. They trulyparticipate in major events,demonstrating resolve andresponsibility, often eventaking the leading role, whichnever undermines the blessedcommunity.

We also haveexamples of women whoshowed courage anddetermination in certainsituations, such as Isaac’swife, Jacob’s and Esau’smother Rebecca, whopreserves the blessing of Godin the home by acting as heryounger son Jacob’saccomplice in his usurping thebirthright of his older brotherEsau, who sold it to him (Gen.27, 13-17). This example,like many others in OldTestament history,14 clearlyshows us that woman is anactive participant and not apassive observer of events.The same Rebecca marriedthe man of her own choice,willingly and not undercoercion (Gen. 24,58), whichalso shows the Old Testamentdynamic of liberty which

13 ibid,154

14 See : Dabro, Archbishopof Paris, Biblijske žene ,Vesnik SPC,1990,1221,1309 I 1388.



entails responsibility as itsyardstick. Observing in thisway the historical course ofhuman life, we may fairly saythat the words of the Lord toEve, “thy desire shall be to thyhusband” (Gen. 3,16) are notlimiting. They designate themastery of self-will andinitiate the cooperation withwhich, through obedience andshared action, powerlesssubmission is overcome. Thisis best seen in the the wordsof the Proverbs, where thiscooperation is a benediction:“House and riches are theinheritance of fathers: and aprudent wife is from the Lord”(Prov. 19,14). It is clear, then,that woman is a gift andblessing from the Lord and nota second-rate person, chattelor subject to be disposed of,but an interlocuter andassociate in all deeds. For thisreason “a virtuous woman isa crown to her husband: butshe that maketh ashamed isrottenness in his bones” (Prov.12,4). It is clear that herehusband and wife are together,not just one beside the other.Woman is not relegated to thebackground, but is the“guardian of the sacred, of thepurity of faith and morality. .. acknowledged and highlyvalued.”15 This proper order,

which is to be seen in theBiblical annunciation andwitness, cannot be assignedsolely to patriarchy or solely tomatriarchy, but implies a clearlydefined place and role for everyindividual in the community.This dimension of communitycan thus be seen in realizationand in the family and in thestate, as well as in the cult inthe temple. Called andauthorized for specific service,they are not privileged, but areresponsible for the deedsentrusted to them. Of course,all this has its own graduality inhistorical realization, acquiringin the evangelical joy thefullness of creative meaning ofthe person and the communityin truth and love.

THE EVANGELICALREALITY

The Gospel deliberateson every undertaking and everyexpectation and quest with thepower of its joy in the reality ofGod the Son and the Mother ofGod. The Divine Child and the“blessed womb” of the Motherof God are the source of alloptimism and the measure of allrelationships between male andfemale. Here difference is notseen as a reason for division intolesser and greater, less or moreimportant, but rather everythingis filed with gifts and honourfrom above. It can then be seenthat the measure of all things is

that “in honouring oneanother we make ourselvesgreater than we are”, and it isthus that we shall understandthe words of the Mother ofGod: “Behold the handmaidof the Lord” (Lk. 1,38) andthe words of the greatest manborn of woman, John theBaptist: “He must increase,but I must decrease”(Jn.3,30). Here there is notmere male or femaleonesidedness, man is thusrealized in the livingcommunity through God theSon and the Mother of God.Here there is neither male norfemale, “but Christ is all, andin all” (Col. 3,11). This doesnot mean abolishingdifferences, but ratherindicating a higher meaning,above mere reduction ofeverything to gender. Nothingis abrogated prematurely, noris anyone denigrated, but allmanifests itself as healed of itsdeficiencies, focused by theknowledge of the goal andwholeness, by the force ofself-sacrificial love.

The evangelicalblessing is a perpetuallyachievable and possiblereality, bestowed upon usincessantly and uncoercively.It is not an ideology imposedby force, but is the perpetuallyrealizable call for everyone.All human endeavours,therefore, are eitherevangelically conceived oraimed against the gospel,whether through ignorance or

15 See Svenka Savić,Feministička teologija ,collected papers, Novi Sad1999; Dušan Glumac, Brak isocijalni položaj žene kodJevreja , Bogoslovlje,Belgrade,1930.



malevolence. In this regardwe see many inadequacies andsuperficialities in the issue ofthe role and place of womenin the evangelical andrevelatory reality. The basicreason for this is thateverything is addressed fromthe perspective of sin, guiltand punishment. This leads toimmobility and inflexibility,which is an obstacle to thereception and understandingof the blessed reality ofevangelical joy. This isunpreparedness for theevangelical law of love bywhich are differences aretranscended and everythingtakes on a new dynamic. Hererepentance and forgivenessare seen as creative moves,above the impotence offinger-pointing andacknowledgement. This is amovement of the quest for anddiscovery of the Kingdom,and is the reason for thosewords that constantly call andwitness: “Repent ye, for thekingdom of heaven is at hand”(Mt. 3,2). This is the onlypossible way of rising abovefalse sinlessness andimaginary righteousness, withwhich many legalists havefettered themselves. TheGospel aims the legal order ata higher meaning, calling allto the joy of the Kingdom.Here all are called as gueststo the banquet, the wedding ofthe King’s son, whether asinvited friends, or as wisevirgins, needing only their

“wedding garments” and “oil intheiramps” (see Mt. 22,11; 25,1-10). For this reason Christaddresses everyone, notchoosing his companions byweak standards or imaginaryrectitude, but sitting withsinners, bearing witness that hehas come to “seek and to savethat which was lost” (Lk.19,20).

By the force of his all-salvific love, Christ brings allthings together, therebyliberating everyone from sinfulimpotence. He speaks to thewoman of Samaria, heals thedaughter of the woman ofCanaan, the touch of his robeheals a woman with an issue ofblood. He does not condemn,but calls to repentance a womantaken in adultery who wasbrought to him by those whoimpose the keeping of the Lawon others without understandingit themselves. He allows awoman who was a sinner toanoint him with preciousointment, and in all these eventshe shows that he is the saviourof all of us (Jn. 4,1-32; Mt.15,28; Jn. 8,11; Lk. 7, 36-47). Wesee that he is accompanied notonly by the apostles but by manypious women (Lk. 8,2) whowere to show themselves, in thesalvific events, more resolutethan the apostles themselves, allof whom except John the Divinefled in fear of the people and theelders. Besides the Mother ofGod and John the Divine,several women remained atGolgotha (Mt. 27, 55-56;

Mk.15, 47). Here is must besaid that women were the firstwitnesses of the resurrection,which they announce to theapostles, to whom “theirwords seemed. . . as idle tales,and they believed them not.”(Lk.24, 11). Of course, all thiswas in the initial confusionand fear after the crucifixion;later they saw for themselvesand bore witness to the joy ofthe resurrection. Here wesimply underline theimportant tole of women inthe salvific events, that bringus all together and lead us intothe reality of the future life.

HISTORY OF THECHURCH

The eschatologicaldynamic of church life in itseucharistic realizability giveseverything a clear historicaldefinition and designation.Thus eschatological vigilanceis not and cannot beuncreative tension, as thehistory of the church clearlyshows us in its everytrajectory. Christian life is nota flight from history but theprocess of intellectuallymaking history meaningful bythe beauty of the Kingdomthat is to come in perpetualwitness and call, which is thegift and responsibility of allbaptized Christians. It is asign of ecclesiastical maturitythat shifts us from the statismof mere nominal affiliation,



bringing us together in thesame deed of priesthood ofkingdom and altar,ecclesiastical hierarchy andchurch congregation. We seein the same call to all to bearwitness as new apostles andnew peace-bringers, for inbaptism and anointment inpeace we are all called andsent into the world toannounce the “new heavensand a new earth” (2 Pet. 3,13), in the joy of the “newcreature” (2 Cor. 5, 17). Thisknowledge has prompted andwill always promptedChristians, in every historicalevents. There has never beenroom here for separation, norreasons for division on thebasis of importance, foreverything is based on thereality of the blessedKingdom. This reality isalways experienced anew inthe joy of Communion, wherethere is no separate role formen and for women.

Only in this way, inthe beauty of the liturgicaldynamic, does everything freeitself from all therevolutionary inadequaciesand understatements withwhich meaningless historicaltrajectories of non-churchhistoricity imposes itself as aconstant errancy of the tragicabout the trackless wastes oftheir ideologies. None of thishas ever been a threat to theChurch, nor has the Churchbeen in conflict with anyone,but has always been under

attack but never defeated. So allthe reproaches with which theChurch is accused ofresponsibility in regard to male-female misunderstandings proveto be invalid, for they have noconfirmation, no warrant. Thereis no conflict, nomisunderstanding on the issuewithin the Church; it is allforeign to the spirit and life ofthe Church. The judgment of theChurch in regard to women doesnot come down merely to theirvoting rights, for this is not theultimate scope of personality, tovote and to be elected.16 Thosewho have renounced the joy ofsainthood, which is the potentialof everyone, burden themselveswith these issues. The womensaints have most fully bornewitness to this for us throughoutthe history of the church. Theacts of the apostles, the apostolicepistles and many writtendocuments clearly show us theplace and role of the manysaintly and beatific women in thelife of the church of their timesand specific place.17

WOMEN AND DIVINESERVICE

Divine servicealways bears the stamp andreality of the livingcommunity. It is here that theshared action of creativity andmemory of God the Son isrealized at its best.Differences of function do notseparate the participants, butbring them together in a singleunified spirit, so that in thecertainty of mention andmemory we all become fellowcommunicants with thesacred. Here everyone feelshimself to be a sinner “ofwhom I am chief” (I Tim.1,15), not as helplessly penitentbut as aware that upon all ofus immense gifts have beenbestowed. This indicates tous that specific service orfunctions are not a guaranteeof salvation in advance, for allis the common deed of all ofus in Christ, in fact his givingto us and our receiving andcontributing. This suggests tous that every service is aresponsibility, not a privilege.A gift is always a call to giveof ourselves and not anauthorization to rule overothers. Ministers are thusalways “helpers of your joy”,and never have “dominionover your faith”. (2 Cor. 1,24).

Knowing that divineservice is always hearing andbestowing, not dominion andmediation, we have a clear

16 See Evgenije Spektorski,Hrišćanstvo i žensko pitanje ,Bratstvo, Sarajevo 1939, 57-64.17 See: Acts. 9, 36; 12, 15; 16,14-15; 17,34; Rom.16, 3-13,Phil. 4, 2 -3; I Tim. 5, 3; I Cor. 7,36-38; Justin Popović, Žitijasvetih devojaka , Belgrade.1998.



definition of the hierarchical,meaningful responsibility thatentails the warrant of dignityand the need to hold inrespect, not to contest. Itcannot be reduced to thepostulate that there is someprivileged group that imposesitself on others, who arewithout rights. It is a matterof one’s own serving, andnothing there may be reducedto a mere division of roles, butis an approach to everythingfrom the perspective of ashared act. It is not sufficientto say, therefore, that womenmay not serve at the altar, forthis or that reason. What arewe to do with the holy powersof active faith, are theredivisions there so that it maybe said that their holy powersare divested of the dignity ofthe altar? Everything is thusbeyond the rash and hastyconclusions that imposethemselves on us by theyardstick of reducingeverything to rights and duties.Furthermore, history gives usexamples of women’s activeinvolvement in the liturgicallife of the Church. There ismention of presbyteresses anddeaconesses, which does notof course mean the existenceof a “female priesthood”, butindicates the reality of theliving participation of womenin the acts of the Lord. StHippolytus clearly says, in hisApostolic tradition, that adeaconess “is not ordained butmerely states the prayers in

words, for she does not carry outthe sacrifice.”18 It is true thatClement of Alexandriadescribes them as “chosenpeople,”19 but this does notrelate to hierarchical divineservice, but indicates that therewere certain conditions for theirselection and appointment, andthat their liturgical activity wasclearly defined.20 To this daywe see that certain nuns have theblessing of their bishop to serveat the altar, which demonstratesthat they have never beenfunctionally barred on principlebut that everything has beengiven meaning by blessing andorder. Only occasionally doesforgetfulness triumph overmemory, but the sound memoryremains intact notwithstandingtemporary lapses of application.Thus there is no need for us totake a backward step on thisissue of the liturgicalparticipation of women, nor dowe need to think up anythingnew. We merely need to affirmourselves in liturgical memory,and then we shall see that thereis no interruption, but that weforesee and dispute with oneanother needlessly. This was

well understood by StNektarije Eginski in his day,so that he introduced everyoneinto the creative liturgicaldynamic, demonstrating to usthat deaconesses are necessarytoday only if they want to findthe meaning of salvificservice,21 and not merely indebates over equality. For theliturgical order is alwayssuperior to parades ofceremonial and the strugglefor primacy.

WOMEN AND THEMISSION OF THECHURCH TODAY

After every attemptand stumble by man on theway to a resolution of theseissues, we are at an advantagetoday, since we have ampleexperience of everything. Wealso have all the indicators ofthe non-feasibility of all theseone-sided, blinkered attemptsand ideas. Unfortunately,some people continuestubbornly to search for ananswer in the trackless wastesof declarations andconventions, whereeverything comes down tounattained agreements andnegotiations, in fact all too

18 Atanasije Jevtić, Delaapostolskih učenika ,Trebinje,1999.19 Nikodim Milaš, Pravilapravoslavne crkve satumačenjima , Novi Sad,1895, 365.20 See L.Mirković,Pravoslavna liturgika , Part I,Belgrade, 1982, 75; J.Popović, op.cit, 52, 78, 162.


21 Jon Brija, Pođite u miru ,Belgrade,1989, 122


often to coercion andimposition. The tragedy in allthis is that many havearbitrarily abandoned thefullness of the church,imagining that this is an act offree will or, more accurately,of democratic rights,overlooking the fact that theright of churchdom isinvariably an aristocracy ofspirit, that is an attempt totruly be not only good butthe best. This is by nomeans to the detriment ofothers, but to the joy andbenefit of the other. Thislogic of service is the truemeasure of the ecclesiasticaldynamic, and anyone whotruly receives andunderstands it is a truewitness, a missionary in theworld, regardless of hisknowledge and standing.

It is very dangerousto accept the idea thatmission is merely a matterfor the hierarchy. This ideathat reduces us all to mere“uniforms” and stereotypesundermines the ecclesiasticalknowledge of those whoadopt it. That this is no meresporadic rarity is bestdemonstrated by the frequentquestion raised by somebaptized Christians in relationto certain phenomena andproblems. In these cases theycalmly and inquisitivelyexpress their disapproval byasking what the Church isdoing, as though the Churchwas something alien to them.

This is a denial of theecclesiastical, almost invariablyunintention, a sign of ignoranceand unwilligness. It would bebetter for everyone to askhimself, in such circumstances,“What am I doing in theChurch?” Much wouldprobably then change, andcertainly everyone would bemuch readier to face the

challenges of his times.Our times are times of

struggle, in which one isoften lost and disoriented,guided by all kinds of over-hasty decisions. This createsa state of insecurity, which isoften the cause ofexaggerated tensions andneedless conflicts, whicherupt before face to facemeetings and discussion.Dialogue is not only distant,in these cases, but trulyimpossible. Everything isminimalized, and we are allin some way marginalized. Itis the state described by the

Apostle Paul in which “withoutwere fightings, within werefears” (2. Cor. 7,5). This is nocause for despair, depressionand pessimism, but occasion forface to face meeting andwitnessing. In this women aremore composed and more open,just as they were after thecrucifixion and resurrection,when they went about freely, notconcealing themselves butseeking the crucified Christ andrecognizing and bearing witnessto the Risen Christ. This takesplace ever anew, in every

generation, and should notsurprise us; it is merelynecessary for us to remainsober and alert in mind so thatour fear may not cause us tostumble and hatred misleadus.

Here shared action ofall is needed, and in particularthe importance and role ofwoman as mother should beemphasized, not only in thebiological sense, but muchdeeper and more substantivelyfrom the sociological andpsychological perspective.All this and more is necessary,but insufficient if it is notfilled with the higher meaningof responsibility. These wordsare a reminder and caution tous in this regard: “Whenyoung women lose their faithand cease to honour theeternal values, when theyforget reason and shame andmodesty, society can expectnothing but destruction andbreak-down.”22 This is not athreat but a call and warningto all of us to measure freedomand creativity by the yardstickof responsibility.

All this led to theInter-Orthodox Council inRhodes, Greece, held from 30October to 7 November 1988,adopting certain conclusionson the place and involvement


22 Sosos Handropulos, SvetiNektarije eginski svetiteljnašeg vijeka , Belgrade,2000, 232.


of women in the life andmission of the Church. Therole of women as “theextended hand of the priest”in his liturgical, pastoral,catechismal, preaching,missionary and social work.The importance and meaningof the female monastic life isemphasized.23 All of thisshould be a good signpost forus on the road to the commonrealization of all and of allthings in Christ.

CONCLUSION

The mission of theChurch always entails theparticipation of everybaptized and anointedmember in the shared act ofwitnessing. We are all calledand all responsible, each in hisown knowledge and with hisown talents. The act is one,regardless of certaindifferences, which do notundermine the unity of thefaith. Greater gifts entailgreater responsibility, butnever the privilege of standingout because of greatness ofgifts. The responsibility of thehierarchy, the altarpriesthood, is greater than thatof others, which does notpreclude the participation inthe royal priesthood of thebelieving people of God. Theunordained are not called, just

as the ordained are not saved inadvance by the mere fact ofhaving been ordained.Everything is a common act inthe Church in the fullness of Godthe Son, and realizes itself inblessed, active fulfilment.

This creative comingtogether in diversity of gifts andaction qualitatively transcendsevery idea of equality. For thisidea of equality turns everyonein upon himself and againstothers, establishing interest asthe sole measure of arelationship. Then the sense ofself-sacrificial love is lost, andfinally one is discouraged andout of a sense of helplessness optsfor rebelliong, but everythingultimately ends in subjugation toa certain idea, which arousesnon-creative impulses andmeaningless combat. Nothingcan be resolved in this way, foreverything is renderedmeaningless by ignorance andclosed-off selfishness.

All non-Churchattempts on the part of variousideologies to resolve the “issueof women” in one way oranother remain mere goodintentions that all too often comedown to conflicts and squabbles,even before discussion hasbegun. For debate alone,without the test of experience,begins with a state of mistrustand coercion, so that the questfor solutions is avoided inadvance. Much is overlooked,but the greatest omission of allis to view everything solely fromthe perspective of gender,

without going deeper into themystery of man’s existence:existence from the perspectiveof the reality of the eternallife, not merely from thehistorical, temporalperspective. Only then areenlightenment and progressaddressed in the propermanner. The God-given andpossible sainthood becomesthe final measure of all humanaction, and all of us arethereby in one and the samepriestly deed of self-enlightenment andenlightenment of others in thejoy of the true life.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Holy Bible, Old andNew Testament,Authorized Versionof King James

2. Nikodim Milaš,Pravila svetihapostola, Pančevo,1878.

3. Nikodim Milaš,Pravila Pravoslavnecrkve satumačenjima, N. Sad1895.

4. Atanasije Jevtić,Dela apostolskihučenika, Trebinje1999.

5. Jon Brija, Pođite umiru, Belgrade,1989.

6. Jon Brija, Rečnikp r a v o s l a v n e


23 Jon Brija, op.cit, 119-121.


teologije, Belgrade,1999.7. Pravoslavna riznica – O braku

i porodici, Belgrade,1998.8. A. Šmeman, Sveta tajna ljubavi,

Cetinje 995.9. St Gregory Palamas, Gospode

prosveti tamu moju, Belgrade,1999.

10. Pavle Evdokimov, Žena ispasenje sveta, Cetinje 2001.

11. Svenka Savić, Feminističkateologija, collected papers,Novi Sad,1999.

12. Sosos Handropulos, SvetiNektarije Eginski, svetiteljnašeg veka, Belgrade, 2000.

13. Justin Popović, Žitija svetihdjevojaka, Belgrade,1998.

14. Justin Popović, Tumačenjejevanđelja po Mateju,Belgrade,1979.

15. Slavko Pejić, Znamenite srpskepravoslavke, Belgrade, 1969.

16. Mitropolit Mihailo, Životopispresvete Bogorodice sa naukomPravoslavne Crkve o njoj, NoviSad 1886.

17. Jovan Stančić, Socijalni položajžene u istoriji, Svetosavlje1934.

18. Dabro, Biblijske žene, VjesnikSPC 1900.

19. Evgenije Spektorski,Hrišćanstvo i žensko pitanje,Bratstvo, Sarajevo 1939.

20. Aleksa Ivić, Hrišćanstvo zaprva tri vijeka, Hr.Vjesnik,1879.

21. Podvižništvo hrišćanskih ženau staroj crkvi, Duh.Straža,1931.

22. Dragomir Marić, Hrišćanstvo ižena, Hrišć. Delo,1938.

23. Dušan Glumac, Brak i socijalnipoložaj žene kod Jevreja,Bogoslovlje, Belgrade,1930.



R E L I G I O U SPERSPECTIVES