Abstract
In 2001–02, the Academy of Theological Studies, under the auspices of the Holy Metropolis of Demetrias (Volos) of the Church of Greece, held a series of lectures, which dealt with the theme of Modernity and the Orthodox Church. Invited to speak were prominent professors from national and international institutions and universities specializing in the fields of theology, sociology, philosophy, law, history, medicine and psychology. Pantelis Kalaitzides, the coeditor and coordinator, was responsible for documenting these lectures, twenty in all, and in 2007, the Academy published this prestigious volume entitled Orthodoxy and Modernity containing the entire collection of essays.
The essays in this book exemplify a long-awaited and much-needed probing analysis and critique of a history of engagement between the modern world shaped by the European Enlightenment and the Orthodox Church. Since the end of the Second World War, the Orthodox Church has been experiencing a renewal and a rekindled interest in its worship, theology, literature, and art as evidenced by a plethora of publications, gatherings of international theological conferences, colloquia and lectures. This analysis reveals, however, that although there has been a notable resurgence of faith in Orthodox Christianity, there is concern about a certain trait symptomatic of post-modernity, namely fundamentalism. Among the many topics that this book unveils, the themes that follow are seminal in one way or another throughout the book.
Sacred Orthodox tradition is interwoven with age-old customs, a rich theology and worship infused by its cultural history – the context in which Eastern Christendom flourished. However, there is a reliance on the past, which renders the Orthodox Church susceptible to fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a self-defense mechanism triggered by a sense of loss, perpetuated by the uncertainty that characterizes the modern and post-modern world. It is this uncertainty which encourages a fixation on traditional formulations and symbols (Basil Thermos). In contrast, sacred tradition and customs were shaped through a dialectic engagement and exchange with antiquity and the Middle Ages in which a Christian Hellenism was conceived. This engagement and exchange serves as the paradigm for an Orthodox rapprochement with the modern world today. Instead, as all the essayists in this book suggest, the Orthodox Church today seems content with the safety provided by the tried and true forms effective in the past but incoherent with the present. As a consequence, the Orthodox Church continues in many ways to be the Church of the Middle Ages. This dependency on the past is a temptation that the Orthodox Church must overcome if it is not to be reduced to an outdated institution, out of touch with the problems of modern humanity (Thanos Lipovatz).
The revived interest in the study of the Holy Fathers of the Church since the second half of the 20th century offered promise for the emergence of a neo-patristic synthesis, and a new hope for the Christianization of modernity. This promise, however, may have been obscured by a distorted understanding of the meaning of a return to the Fathers, and displaced by paranoia and an obsession with the relentless critique of the failures of modernity (Theophilos Ambatzidis). In contrast, the pioneers of the neo-patristic synthesis, namely the memorable Russian theologians of the Diaspora, such as Fr. George Florovsky, Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Fr. John Meyendorff and Vladimir Lossky, envisioned a synthesis that would contribute to an essential dialectic conversation with the modern world.
The undeniable accomplishments of modernity should not intimidate but, rather, should be recognized by the Orthodox Church (Konstantinos Delikonstantis), the most important being the advancement of human rights and tolerance. In spite of modernity’s successes, however, this, the ultimate important accomplishment, was not attained without tribulation, tragically inspired by its past failures. A belief in God displaced by natural philosophy, and delusions of a utopia promised by modern science, preceded the desacralization of the human being. Pure and disproportionate rationalism – as noted by the Frankfurt School – driven by a cold utilitarianism, fed the aberrations of racial discrimination of the 19th century, which culminated in unprecedented crimes against humanity. The dictatorship of rationalism, communism and fascism, the ecological crisis, and recently, extreme individualism, are the legacy of a misconceived modernity, indicating the need for a re-evaluation of the Enlightenment, not to condemn it but to improve upon it. In this respect, Orthodox Christianity has much to contribute towards an “enlightening of the Enlightenment” (Marios Begzos).
When the age of Enlightenment encountered the Orthodox East, as early as the 17th century, the very first to embrace it were the clergy (Pantelis Kalaitzides). But as with Hellenism in the 4th and 5th centuries, the Orthodox Church received modernity with an eclectic posture and discernment. The ideas of the Enlightenment were not ingested haphazardly. Advances in human knowledge and technology were welcome, whereas secularism and atheism were vigorously rejected. Ultimately, the Orthodox Church had always held the view that an enlightened faith is preferred to an uninformed one, and a faithful and “enlightened” society is far better than simply a modern one (Antonios Manitakis).
Although contrary to the nature of the Church, in the past centuries, the Orthodox Churches have had to struggle with ethnocentrism. Nonetheless, this phenomenon was influenced by an ethnocentric political and national ideology widespread in Europe and the outcome of a long power-struggle in the early 19th century, and the product of a forced submission of the Church to the state. It is important to note that the Orthodox Church was never a class above, but always a fully participating and contributing member of, all levels of society. In seeking their place in modern society, the Orthodox Churches succumbed to the pressures of the state for the promise of peaceful coexistence and correspondence (συναλληλíα). John S. Petrou asserts that an Orthodox ecclesiology cleansed from the disastrous distortions of ethnocentrism and an outdated nationalism will restore the Church’s dimension as Catholic and ecumenical. It will contribute favorably to constructive dialogue, addressing matters of racial discrimination and the desecration of humankind within a heterogeneous and pluralistic society.
Individualism is a post-modern symptom which threatens social cohesion and welfare. Orthodox Christology and theology takes on individualism by positing the theology of the person. This approach appears to be an innovation among modern Orthodox theologians, but it is in fact rooted in the patristic understanding of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The theology of the person which promotes salvation through the “other” and ultimately through the Absolute “Other,” beyond proposing simply an opening up towards “otherness” as a response to individualism, provides the basis upon which tolerance and coexistence can be socially integrated above legal and moral considerations – on an existential level – as an advancement and transformation of the human species. The Orthodox theology of the person is the first real attempt at dialogue with modernity, and it should not be reduced to yet another obstacle, a point of contention, spent on a relentless critique of the West (Theophilos Ambatzidis).
The Enlightenment supposedly ushered in the age of reason and respect for human dignity and freedom. Instead, human reason was reduced to an end in itself, limiting human knowledge solely to a function of deductive reasoning, and enslaving itself to rationalism as the exclusive modus operandi of modernity. The Orthodox Church, however, is not in conflict with reason or logic, but rather with a monopoly of total rationalism and determinism that expresses itself as a form of totalitarianism. In response to absolute reason, the Orthodox theological tradition proposes apophaticism. It not only preserves the duality of reason – the mystery and nature of reason as an intuition – from the one extreme of rationalism and determinism, but also addresses the other extreme, irrationalism and indeterminism. Both extremes depend respectively on necessity or chance (the positivism dispute), and rule out a causality based on freedom. Yet, as much as it is argued to the contrary, rationalism itself is rooted in mysticism. It wells out of a mysticism that does not contradict apophaticism, for behind it lies an inexplicable mystery, an inexplicable need and intuition, and an a priori of human consciousness and reason (Dimitrios Ouli).
The dialectic approach towards the modern world implies a reciprocal exchange through which the life of the Church becomes culturally enriched. A modern world that is open and accepting of Christianity will naturally contextualize the Church by allowing it to sanctify all aspects of public and private life. Such enrichment (antidosis) is not only possible and necessary, but is inevitable. Orthodox Christians who are at the same time contributors to art, modern science and technology contextualize their Orthodox faith in their lives, and consequently enrich the Church with their work and knowledge. Given that one important function of the Church is to heal, such mutual exchange can be applied to the sciences of healing. In this context, Fr. Basil Thermos, as a medical doctor and psychologist, promotes in his essay his own vision for a mutual exchange between pastoral healing and the study of psychoanalysis.
It is clear that the Orthodox Church is confronted with two options and two dangers: the option to choose to engage or to reject modernity, and the danger of arbitrary modernization or eschatological obscurantism. The danger entailed in an uncritical acceptance of modernity would result in a loss of authenticity of the Church by adopting the forms of this world. The criterion of authenticity for the Church has always been dependent upon the answer to the question, “Ultimately who baptizes whom, and who is the one being transfigured and into what?” (Konstantinos Agoras). On the other extreme, the option of a total rejection of modernity will contribute to discontinuity, which may not be so apparent in some native Orthodox countries, but is becoming more evident as generations pass (Nicolas Kokosalaki). The danger of arbitrary modernization transforms the Church into something that is not authentic to itself. The same effect is equally evident when one considers the theological presuppositions of a stance of total rejection. Such a stance is rooted in a dualistic “end-of-the-world” eschatology whose focus is entirely removed from the authentic Christian understanding of the eschaton as the anticipation of the coming and indwelling Kingdom of God made manifest in the Church. The Church is eschatological in nature and not bound to any history or culture. Its garment, the stuff which is used to re-express the Gospel throughout the ages, is the present (Konstantinos Agoras). Therefore, to dialogue with modernity, and to re-state the Good News, demands integrity and accountability. Foremost, it greatly depends upon a conscious decision that each person makes to commit to the matter of personal sanctification and to the desire to form Christ within (Theophilos Ambatzidis).
It was suggested in the beginning of this commentary that a discussion concerning Orthodoxy and modernity was long-awaited. Yet I think that at the same time it was inevitable. In this sense, some of the essays are seized by a sense of alarmism, urging the need for immediate and drastic action. Rather, it is essential to recognize that a positive dialectic with the modern world will not result from any programmatic shift in Church theology, nor will it be realized by a relentless intellectual activism. The understanding and contextualization of sacred tradition cannot be merely an intellectual exercise. The inner life of the Orthodox Church must precede it. This life is embodied in the Eucharist and invigorated in asceticism, both necessary for the activation of the Holy Spirit within the self and the Church. In these, the eschatological focus on the present and imminent Kingdom is safeguarded, and only through these can a true dialectic with the world be initiated. And yet, these essential elements which characterize wholly the Orthodox experience, with certain exceptions, are not emphasized nearly enough in this book.
Overall, from the point of view of an Orthodox reader, the essays contained in this book provoke thought and do influence a reassessment and a shift in attitude. In a similar vein of thought, to paraphrase the notable theologian Fr. Alexander Schmemann, ultimately everything – including the stuff of this modern world – has the potential to be transformed into the Eucharist. To complement such an already comprehensive statement, this transformation implies both Orthodoxy of faith and “orthopraxia,” the practice of the faith based upon careful discernment. In other words, an authentic faith and ascesis aligned with Christian Orthodox Sacred Tradition.