Supplement by Abp. Lazar

Perhaps at the root of the problem is a misunderstanding about ekonomia.

The concept is that when "akrivia" [the strict application of a canon or doctrine] might actually hinder someone's salvation–or even emotional and mental health– we apply economy, which is really the opposite of akrivia [strictness].

Allowing remarriage after a divorce is a clear example, and is especially necessary for young people who are not able to tightly control their sex drive.

Another example is when we receive people and to the Orthodox Church through chrismation if they have been baptized in a trinitarian church. Reception by chrismation does not become the "principle" but rather is an exercise in economy. The Chrismation would be seen as a form of ordination into the Royal priesthood. We do not thereby declare that the baptism was complete, but we exercise economy for the sake of someone's salvation.

I am not clear about what some people are trying to make of ekonomia.

The economy of our Saviour is really this: we could not on our own recover paradise, in the alienation between man and God, so strictness was set aside, and Christ, in himself, abolished the alienation. Men could not rise up to heaven, so Heaven descended to men.

I don't know what convoluted twist some people are trying to make of this. Our Christian social programme should be the Beatitudes and the moral imperatives given by Jesus Christ.

We are far off the track when we understand "justice" in a juridical sense and do not understand it as "balancing matters," restoring the balance in nature and the balance in the relationship between God and Man.

Ekonomia simply means "relinquishing strictness in order to facilitate salvation."

We also have to extend that to matters where strictness would mentally and emotionally damage a person. That has to be the only real definition of "social economy." Ekonomia can only be understood in the context of soteriology.