The Promise and Pitfalls of Recent Currents in Contemporary Orthodox Theology of Religions Neven Vukic

Louvain Studies 41 (2018): 416-440 doi: 10.2143/LS.41.4.3285587 © 2018 by Louvain Studies, all rights reserved The Promise and Pitfalls of Recent Currents in Contemporary Orthodox Theology of Religions Neven Vukic Abstract. — This article provides a short overview of the trends that have appeared within the theology of interreligious dialogue as practiced in Orthodox theology. A concluding reflection will summarize these developments in a systematic fashion. In the first part of this article, an overview is given of the involvement of the Ecu- menical Patriarchate in matters related to interreligious dialogue and the developments in Orthodox theology of non-Christian religions which might be described as an emergent ‘middle way’. The second section of the article seeks to present some of the major obstacles threatening the development of both, a ‘middle-way’ theology of non-Christian religions and the successful practice of interreligious dialogue. If not dealt with, these obstacles may well derail the entire project of an Orthodox Chris- tian theology of interreligious dialogue. The aim of this article is to present a short survey of the trends that have appeared within the theology of interreligious dialogue as practiced in Orthodox theology. Following an overview of the activities of the Ecu- menical Patriarchate with regard to interreligious dialogue,1 and a short presentation of proposed theologies of non-Christian religions in the first part of the article, the second part will highlight some of the major potential obstacles to these efforts. These ‘obstacles’ are, in fact, theological arguments coming from within the same Orthodox tradition. Supporting arguments from liturgical texts (i.e., liturgical tradition) are often dismissed or overlooked by some of the most influential Orthodox authors or spokespersons engaged in interreligious dialogue, even though liturgical tradition is second only to Scripture as an authoritative source for theology and practice. However, before we continue, there is a need 1. In this text, the term, ‘interreligious dialogue’ refers to a theological exchange between two interlocutors from different religious groups. Without the Roman Catholic tradition, interreligious dialogue has also been described as including three other themes, the dialogue of life, of action, and of religious experience. See http://www.vatican.va/ roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_19051991_ dialogue-and-proclamatio_en.html. See #42. THE PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS 417 for clarification of the sometimes ambiguous terminology that is employed in these discussions. The usage of the term ‘Orthodox’ in the title and throughout the text is never meant to express the notion that the author is attributing any particular claim to the entirety of the Orthodox communion, unless it is expressly stated within the text. The complexity and diversity of the theological and cultural traditions of the Christian Orthodox world have been taken into account, and the use of the term, ‘Orthodox’, will serve merely to point up the fact that, for example, a particular idea has come from a theologian or a person of influence, who has been recognized as belonging to any of the Canonical Orthodox traditions. Moreover, an effort will be made to identify these individuals and to situate their ideas within their ecclesial tradition. I. Orthodox Christianity and the ‘Religious Other’ The growth in interest for interreligious dialogue is a trend that has not gone unnoticed in the Christian Orthodox oikumene. In spite of an unjustified image of being somewhat closed to the world at large, there are autocephalous Orthodox Churches and Orthodox theologians engaged in interreligious dialogue. In what follows we will present a succinct overview of their efforts, since this discussion has been pursued at greater length by others. Moreover, we will focus primarily on recent developments within the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the communica- tion coming from that source, as well as the opinions and recorded declarations of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Patriarch Bartholomew’s views on Islam and the necessity of cooperation between the Orthodox and Muslim traditions could serve us well in our effort to distil what an Orthodox position towards Islam might look like. Due to the particular nature of his office, and the long and complex history between Orthodox Christians and Muslims, he has often spoken on the prospects for, and necessity of, interreligious cooperation between Islam and (Orthodox) Christians in areas where they live in close proximity. Before we proceed, however, it should be noted that the positions explored here are only one part of the spectrum of opinions found in the Orthodox Christian world. According to James S. Cutsinger, there are at least three distinct positions, or views towards other religions.2 Furthermore, acceptance of one of these three seriously alters, or even 2. James S. Cutsinger, “The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Other Religions,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42, nos. 3-4 (1997): 429. 418 NEVEN VUKIC prevents the possibility of, interreligious dialogue. The first position is that salvation is attainable only through the Church, and all those outside are damned. The second states that those outside the Church might be saved, but only through the mercy of God. Finally, the third position states that non-Christian religions are equally capable of guiding others to salvation. Citing Cutsinger, George Papademetriou identifies these views as parallel to the now more or less ‘classical’ approaches identified as exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism.3 Of the three, Papademetriou suggests a rejection of exclusivism “as a matter of Truth,” while pluralism is not rejected outright, but is understood as a slippery slope “fraught with danger” and accepted (but advised against) with some reserve (rejecting syncretism and relativism).4 The middle way which is also promoted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and other Orthodox thinkers is the one which we will discuss here. 1. The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Value of Interreligious Dialogue The Ecumenical Patriarchate has participated in a long-term series of organized interreligious conferences which Sharp calls “the most focused and sustained dialogue between Orthodox Christians and Muslims during the last quarter of the twentieth century.”5 While the initial meetings were organized under the auspices of his predecessor, Demetrios of Constantinople (1914-1991), Patriarch Bartholomew has continued this tradition. Up until now, ten meetings have been held. The first of these meetings was held on November 17-19, 1986 in Chambésy, Switzerland, and the last one to date, on October 28-30, 2002 in Manama, Bahrein. The meetings were a result of a joint venture between the Orthodox Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, based in Chambesy-Geneva, Switzerland, and the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, based in Amman, Jordan.6 Meanwhile, since 2001 these have been continued by the Department of Interreligious and Intercultural Affairs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, based in Brussels, Belgium, and the King- dom of Bahrein.7 3. George C. Papademetriou, “An Orthodox Christian View of Non-Christian Religions – Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America,” Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, accessed February 8, 2014, http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8089. 4. Ibid. 5. Andrew Sharp, Orthodox Christians and Islam in the Postmodern Age (Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2012), 118. 6. Ibid. 7. “Interreligieux Islam – Centre Orthodoxe,” accessed March 12, 2016, http:// www.centreorthodoxe.org/dialogues-bilateraux/interreligieux-islam. THE PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS 419 According to Patriarch Bartholomew, the contemporary world is marked by at least two distinctive features – pluralism and secularization. Both are equally influential on Christianity and Islam alike, and in order to overcome their negative side-effects, interreligious dialogue becomes unavoidable. Pluralism (or pluralization), and especially its most observ- able aspect, immigration, is an overall positive trend, “an opportunity and a challenge, rather than a problem and threat” and an object of pastoral practice.8 This aspect of immigration, and especially the presence of Muslim migrants in EU countries, is not problematic as such, in the opinion of the Patriarch; it is rather the problem of the EU countries’ secularistic nature that is the source of the problem. Furthermore, the Patriarch states: The problem is not that Islam is undoubtedly growing as a presence in the West, or that it is increasingly visible and vocal as a presence in the world. The problem lies in the unprepared nature of the West to understand and embrace this presence. Indeed, the reality is that, in contrast with the self-confidence of militant Islam, the West finds itself in an era of postmodern moral indifference. The greatest vul- nerability of the West is not so much the rise of Islam as the rampant growth of secularism.9 Islam, in the West, is not some sort of anachronistic anomaly, as it is perceived by various Western critics (i.e. islamophobes) of Islam, nor is it a civilizational nemesis as suggested by the theory of the ‘clash of civiliza- tions’. It has a different role as far as the Patriarch is concerned. According to Olivier Clément, the Patriarch sees in Islam a powerful ally in the fight against modernism (i.e., secularism),

Load more