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), or modernity, which the Patriarch perceives as a “cultural mutation” that “devours those who would challenge it from the outside.”10 Clément, whose work has been viewed as representative of the opinion of the Patriarch himself, goes on to say: Christians – and Orthodox Christians in particular, who know similar temptations, but perhaps less than others – must ally themselves with an authentic Islam to overcome modernity ‘from the inside’, through a new cultural transformation. Together, they will remind the world of the irreducible nature of the person, the ‘image of God’ for Christians, the khalifa (meaning God’s vicar) for Moslems.11

8. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery: Understanding Orthodox Christianity Today (New York, NY: Image, 2008), 178. 9. Ibid., 180. 10. Olivier Clément, Conversations with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997), 209. 11. Ibid., 210. 420 NEVEN VUKIC

The “cultural transformation,” which an alliance of authentic Christian and authentic Islamic tradition is capable of producing, has apparently already happened before. During his speech at the 17th Eurasian Eco- nomic Summit, the Patriarch pointed to a conjoined cultural influence of the Byzantine Empire and Islam as originators of the Italian renaissance. In addition to its potential as a means to forge an alliance against modernity, and to contribute to a cultural revolution such as witnessed in the renaissance, the Patriarch sees other reasons for both sides to participate in interreligious dialogue: Despite the absoluteness that provides the foundation for every religious faith, interreligious dialogue is also necessary because as our knowledge of other religions increases, so too does our understanding of our own religion. Finally, a better understanding of our own religion and of one or several other religions helps us to better understand what God expects from humankind, and to better see the weaknesses or inaccuracies that may lie beneath our beliefs.12 The benefit, therefore, is at least threefold: dialogue helps both parties to better understand the faith of the other, and through reflection on these new findings, to promote a better understanding of one’s own faith. Moreover, through a better understanding of two traditions, the participants come closer to God. Through the exploration and better understanding of other religions, the Patriarch sees a way to discover a clearer image of our own faith. Furthermore there are various other ben- efits to society: in the first instance interreligious dialogue would contribute to the “cessation of religious intolerance”; second, it would lead to the “triumph of mutual understanding”; and, third, it would lead to an “establishment of certainty in the good intentions of both sides, respect- ful of each person’s cultural background and freedom of religious choice.”13 Another benefit arises alongside the ones mentioned here, an evangelizing one. According to the Patriarch, by promoting peaceful coexistence, both parties would be “helping believers and non-believers to discover God’s goodness, and eventually becoming conscious believers.”14

12. George C. Papademetriou, Two Traditions, One Space: Orthodox Christians and Muslims in Dialogue (Boston, MA: Somerset Hall Press, 2011), 282-297. 13. Ibid. 14. Patriarch Bartholomew, “Opening Address of the Interreligious Conference Peace and Tolerance II,” accessed June 25, 2015, https://www.Patriarchate.org/other- ecumenical-documents/-/asset_publisher/aVZXzRHnQs0R/content/opening-address-of- the-interreligious-conference-peace-and-tolerance-1/pop_up?_101_INSTANCE_ aVZXzRHnQs0R_viewMode=print. THE PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS 421

2. The Middle Way As stated above, the proposed theology of interreligious dialogue cannot be either exclusive or pluralistic; it must be inclusive, and this is precisely what the Patriarch is promoting. Given that, currently, there is no official position within any of the canonical Orthodox Churches with regards to either the precise content of such an inclusive theology of interreligious dialogue or the view to be taken of other religions, the theologians involved turn to various sources in an attempt to distil what such a position might look like. The Great and Holy Synod, which took place in June 2016, was supposed to address the topic of interreligious dialogue. However, the topic of interreligious dialogue was scarcely mentioned in the documents published by the Council and the salvific value of non-Christian religions was not discussed at all. The documents that do mention the topic of interreligious dialogue15 were a far cry from what the expectations had been. More on this will be said later. Let us now turn our attention to the Orthodox theologians who have attempted to develop a position towards interreligious dialogue and the salvific value of non-Christian religions, in a fashion acceptable to the Orthodox Christian world. The two main authors in this regard are the metropolitan of the archdiocese of Byblos and Botris (Mount Lebanon) of the Church of Antioch, George Khodr, and the current primate of the Church of Albania, Anastasios (Yannoulatos), Archbishop of Tirana, Durrës and All Albania. Both authors, among others, employ the same methodological approach in their attempts to determine what an Orthodox theology of interreligious dialogue might look like, as well as to determine the position of the Orthodox Church vis-à-vis non-Christian religions (i.e., Islam). Sharp has identified the three main sources for the prevailing theology of interreligious dialogue as follows: Scripture, patristic Sources, and the central Christological and Trinitarian doctrines of the Church.16 With regards to Scripture, we should look first to Cutsinger who has attempted to give an ‘inclusivist’ interpretation of a biblical passage that, in his words, is ‘often decisive’ in discussions on the salvific value of non-Christian religions. The text in question is John 14:6: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” For Cutsinger this passage should not be used as an argument for

15. “Encyclical of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church,” accessed November 22, 2016, https://www.holycouncil.org/-/encyclical-holy-council; “The Mis- sion of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World,” accessed November 22, 2016, https:// www.holycouncil.org/-/mission-orthodox-church-todays-world. 16. Sharp, Orthodox Christians and Islam in the Postmodern Age, 52. 422 NEVEN VUKIC the exclusivist approach which sees all other non-Orthodox religions as diabolical inventions: We Orthodox, however, are supposed to know our theology better! And in this case knowing our theology means remembering that the subject of all our Lord’s actions and words was not his human nature, but the divine Person of the eternal Logos. This is clear enough when He tells the Jews that “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). We must remember, too, that this same transtemporal Subject is “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (John 1:9).17 In other words, the usage of pronouns I and me, in this famous passage, should not be considered as referring exclusively to the historical Jesus. Moreover, it is wrong to assume that it is only and exclusively through acknowledgment of Him (the historical Jesus of Nazareth), that one can be saved.18 Rather, it is the pre-existent logos that is implied in the passage, and while inseparable from the historical Jesus, His salvific role is not temporally determined. Having accounted for the weighty claims of John, the authors are free to explore other passages which may support a positive view of non- Christian traditions. Sharp has noted that an appeal is often made to the Book of Genesis (Gen 1:26-27) where one reads that the whole of humankind is made in the image and likeness of God.19 Yannoulatos declares that: “The basic thread that runs through … Orthodox thought, is that human beings were created in the ‘image of God’ and that they have never lost this divine ‘citizenship’.”20 Furthermore, Yannoulatos has explored the idea of understanding other religions as ‘other covenants’ which God has made with humanity, and which are therefore still valid and whose significance cannot be diminished: In addition to the definitive ‘New Covenant’ – the new treaty contracted by God with human beings in the Christ – other ‘covenants’ with broader and special content also existed, maintaining their significance and validity. The first covenant was with Adam and Eve, that is, the representatives of the entire human race. The second covenant was with Noah and the new humanity who were saved from the deluge (Gen. 9:8, 13:6). The third covenant (Gen. 15:18) was contracted with Abraham, the originator of a people, who was destined to play a basic role in the salvatory plan of God.21

17. Cutsinger, “The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Other Religions,” 431-432. 18. Ibid., 431. 19. Sharp, Orthodox Christians and Islam in the Postmodern Age, 52. 20. Anastasios Yannoulatos, Facing the World: Orthodox Christian Essays on Global Concerns (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003), 86. 21. Ibid., 124. THE PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS 423

Muslims and Islam are a unique case in history with their, as Yannoula- tos puts it, “singular step back in history in their devotion to Abraham.” In view of this step, they are in pretty much the same position, with regards to the Abrahamic Covenant, as Judaism.22 George Khodr expressed similar views some 15 years earlier,23 referring to a “cosmic covenant” outside the borders of “Old Israel,” made with Noah, which runs “alongside” and independent of the “Abrahamic covenant.”24 Aside from these, Yannoulatos has often referred to other texts of the New Testament, which show, in his view, “that Christ himself acknowledged the extraordinary power of faith – the extraordinary relationship with God – in gentiles.” The most important texts in this regard are Matt 8:10, 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30, Luke 7:5, Acts 10:1-11:16, 14:17, 17:22-31.44.25 Furthermore, Acts and the Pauline texts, along with sec- tions of the Book of Revelation, were used by Khodr in his now famous address to the Central Committee at Addis Ababa in 1971, in which he stated: In the Cornelius narrative we learn that ‘in every nation the man who is god-fearing and does what is right is acceptable’ to God (10.35). ‘In past ages God allowed all nations to go their own way’ (14.16) ‘yet he has not left you without some clue to his nature’ (14.17). There is among the Gentiles a yearning for the ‘unknown God’ (17.23), a search for the God who ‘is not far from each one of us, for in him we live and move, in him we exist’ (17.28).26 These are only some of the examples of the use of Scriptural sources by the two most important Orthodox theologians in the field of interreligious dialogue. The use of Scripture is supplemented by an appeal to patristic Sources.27 Sharp points out that Anastasios Yannoulatos and George Khodr have relied heavily on patristic sources to make the case that there is support within the tradition for open and positive

22. Yannoulatos, Facing the World, 125. 23. The text of Yannoulatos quoted above is from the 2003 edition, however the original presentation of the text was in 1986, while Khodr’s text was presented in Addis Ababa in 1971, predating it by 15 years. 24. Georges Khodr, “Christianity in a Pluralistic World – The Economy of the Holy Spirit,” Ecumenical Review 23, no. 2 (1971): 124. Whether Islam is a part of both the ‘cosmic’ and the ’Abrahamic’ covenant, or only the ’cosmic’ is unclear from Khodr’s text. 25. Yannoulatos, Facing the World, 146, 147. 26. Khodr, “Christianity in a Pluralistic World – The Economy of the Holy Spirit,” 119. 27. For a finer analysis of the usage of Patristic writings by the authors, see Sharp, Orthodox Christians and Islam in the Postmodern Age. For practical examples of such usage se A. Yannoulatos, Facing the World – Orthodox Christian Essays on Global Concerns (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2003). 424 NEVEN VUKIC

engagement with Islam, and other religions generally.”28 Papademetriou goes as far to say that a proper Orthodox Christian theology of interreligious dialogue is “rooted in the Church Fathers.”29 The first, and by far the most influential of the Fathers, with regards to our topic, is St. Justin Martyr and his concept of spermatikos logos (seminal word). Sharp points to the “great significance for interreligious relations today” that a number of Orthodox theologians attribute to the writings of St. Justin in their efforts “to make the case that Orthodox Christians today should consider those of other religions, and especially Islam that affirms Jesus’ role in bringing man to God, as followers of Christ and the good, the truth, the light.”30 In 2005, John Garvey published Seeds of the Word,31 in which he introduced readers to Orthodox thinking on other religions. In a reflection on the paragraph of St. Justin’s second apology which contains the famed concept (Second Apology, chapter 13), Garvey has this to say: In Justin’s words, we see a different approach from those Christians who have argued that there are no truths at all outside of Christian- ity. He says that all truth belongs to Christians because God, through the Word, is the source of all truth, and the Word who took on human flesh in Christ is the fullness of all human truth. But those who even unwittingly have participated in this truth are in some sense in communion with it, however imperfectly, and this is because ‘seeds of the Word (Logos)’ are found everywhere.32 The third ‘legitimizing source’ for those involved in developing a theology of interreligious dialogue and an overall positive view of non-Christian traditions is derived from the conciliar dogmas with regard to the natures of the Divine Persons. The primary concepts derived from this tradition are the ‘economy of the Son’ and the ‘economy of the Spirit’.33 The ‘economy of the Son’ or the economy of the Logos, as understood and applied by Khodr, concerns the working of the Logos throughout time and space, with the work of the ‘historical Jesus’, or the Logos incarnate in the flesh, being only one part of it: “The economy of Christ cannot

28. Andrew Sharp, “Modern Encounters with Islam and the Impact on Orthodox Thought, Identity, and Action,” International Journal of Orthodox Theology 5, no. 1 (2014): 123. 29. Papademetriou, “An Orthodox Christian View of Non-Christian Religions – Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.” 30. Sharp, “Modern Encounters with Islam and the Impact on Orthodox Thought, Identity, and Action,” 124, 125. 31. John Garvey, Seeds of the Word: Orthodox Thinking on Other Religions (Crest- wood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005). 32. Ibid., 86. 33. Sharp, “Modern Encounters with Islam and the Impact on Orthodox Thought, Identity, and Action,” 127. THE PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS 425 be reduced to its historical manifestation but indicates the fact that we are made participants in the very life of God Himself.”34 Furthermore, with regard to the ‘economy of the Spirit’, Khodr’s views are uniquely Eastern Orthodox. Khodr implicitly denied the ‘filioque’ in his separation of the two economies, by suggesting that the economy of the Spirit can only exist as distinct from that of the Son, if “their hypostatic independ- ence is affirmed” and “the advent of the Holy Spirit in the world is not subordinated to the Son.”35 This claim was so controversial that Khodr’s input was excluded from the official statement of the proceedings.36 Yannoulatos was supportive of Khodr’s views in his own work. However, he differs on the issue of the imperative of the independent work of the Holy Spirit. Whereas Khodr has clearly defined his position on the work of the Holy Spirit, Yannoulatos took a step back and applied a more apophatic approach by saying that “the Holy Spirit remains undefined.”37 While both approaches appear within Orthodox Theology, and while the more tactful approach would appear more commendable, the issue has remained a topic for discussion. Sharp has also pointed to another contribution of Yannoulatos to the general discussion, namely, the concept of the koinonia agapes. The Trinity is the origin, the model and the essence of this ‘community of love’. As explained by Yannoulatos: “God is revealed not only as a Supreme Being but as personal God: an existence whose essence is unity; a shar- ing between persons; a unity in three and a trinity in one; a perfect koinonia agapes (communion of love).”38 And while the Church is an image of this community, Yannoulatos expands it to the whole of creation capable of participating in such self-giving love (i.e., humanity, regardless of their religious, racial, national, etc., affiliations).39 By invoking another famous Eastern Orthodox concept, that of theosis, these theologians are proposing that, in order for Christians and the Church to become more Christlike (i.e., theosis), they must include all of humanity in their community of love. However, Yannoulatos adds that the “‘likeness to God [i.e. theosis] is offered to human beings as a possibility, not as an accomplished fact.” He continues by saying that

34. Khodr, “Christianity in a Pluralistic World – The Economy of the Holy Spirit,” 123. 35. Ibid., 126. 36. Sharp, Orthodox Christians and Islam in the Postmodern Age, 69. 37. Ibid., 71. 38. Yannoulatos, Facing the World, 58 (italics in original). 39. Sharp, “Modern Encounters with Islam and the Impact on Orthodox Thought, Identity, and Action,” 130-132. 426 NEVEN VUKIC

“it is ultimately achieved by the action of the Holy Spirit.”40 In a sense, the koinonia agapes could be interpreted as an element of, or as at least associated with, the ‘economy of the Spirit’ since its ultimate ‘catalyst’ is the ‘action of the Holy Spirit’. Of the three possible positions towards non-Christian religions and interreligious dialogue in general, the middle way of inclusivism is the one most promoted. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is one of the most visible proponents of interreligious dialogue within the Eastern Orthodox world. He has advocated its advancement on numerous occasions and for a multitude of reasons throughout his time of service as the Ecumenical Patriarch. Khodr and Yannoulatos, the most prominent advocates of this view, have been the object of recent academic studies. Both authors, and those influenced by them, have made attempts to clarify an Orthodox position on the subject matter, and they have done so in a characteristically Eastern Orthodox manner. In their attempts they have turned to similar sources: Scripture, patristic theology and the decisions of the Holy Coun- cils. Both authors have pointed to the notion of other lasting covenants with humanity as an element of their theology of interreligious dialogue, with Islam being in a similar position as Judaism, through their devotion to Abraham. Secondly, by applying St. Justin Martyr’s utilisation of spermatikos logos, both authors point to traces of the salvific potential within other religions. These traces are a result of the final major elements, the economies of the Word and the Spirit, and the koinonia agapes. These themes may be developed individually; though, they are essentially inter- related. However, while Khodr has a clearly defined position on the particularities of the workings of the Holy Spirit with regards to the Son, Yannoulatos has opted for a more apophatic approach. Ultimately, one should keep in mind that there is, to date, no ‘official position’ within Eastern Orthodoxy with regards to interreligious dialogue or the salvific value of non-Christian religions.

II. Problems and Challenges

Although the theology described so far has flourished most visibly within the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the fact is that there is no ‘official position’ within the Eastern Orthodox Church on the issue of the salvific value of non-Christian religions and, consequently, there is no ‘official’ theology of interreligious dialogue. Yannoulatos himself stated that, with

40. Yannoulatos, Facing the World, 58. THE PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS 427 regard to “the problem of how to understand other religions theologi- cally … in the Orthodox world we don’t have resolutions that have been passed by an official organ of the Church.”41 If anything, the available Orthodox tradition,42 as recognized by all of the canonical Churches, is less than tolerant towards any other religion (or almost any other Chris- tian denomination for that matter). This has been pointed out by many of the critics of Orthodox involvement in both the World Council of Churches and interreligious dialogue.43 Since the beginning of the rap- prochement between Rome and Constantinople and, subsequently, between Constantinople and the rest of the world, there has been a steady resistance within Orthodox circles to these developments. Even though the critics of these developments are often described as minoritarian funda- mentalists or zealots, and dismissed as such by parts of the Orthodox hierarchy, there is evidence to suggest otherwise. For example, in 2012, 22,997 individual signatories, including a large number of clerics, metropolitans and bishops, have signed a document entitled, A Confession of Faith against Ecumenism which condemned not only ecumenism as a pan- heresy, but contains the following paragraph on interreligious dialogue: This inter-Christian syncretism has now expanded into an interreligious syncretism, which equates all the religions with the unique knowledge of and reverence for God and a Christ-like way of life … It is the worst delusion, the greatest heresy of all ages. We believe and confess that salvation is possible in Christ alone. The religions of the world, but also the various heresies do not lead man to salvation.44 A quick overview of the sources of the opposition reveals that they occupy important positions within their own setting of Orthodox theology. Moreover, it becomes clear that the same methodology as that used by the ‘inclusivist’ theologians can yield very different results if that is

41. Yannoulatos, Facing the World, 135-136. 42. Within the bounds of “conservative” Orthodox theology the distinctions between the terms tradition, traditions and the Tradition is a non-issue. The Tradition understood as “the living Lord in his Body since Pentecost” is the Orthodox tradition (i.e. the Orthodox Church). Furthermore, the legitimacy of theological sources (i.e. liturgical, scriptural, patristic, etc. traditions) is determined by their faithfulness to that Tradition. Cf. Tradition and Traditions: Report of the Theological Commission on Tradi- tion and Traditions, WCC, 1963. 43. “A Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism (B),” accessed February 7, 2014, http://www.impantokratoros.gr/FA9AF77F.en.aspx; Justin Popović, “Humanistički ekumenizam,” in Pravoslavna Crkva i ekumenizam (Manastir Hilandar, 1995), 123-140; “Dr. Daniel Panayotova. Patriarchate of Bulgaria: On the Pan-Orthodox Synod and the Appearance of Heresy as a Gift from God so That Orthodoxy Can Be Proclaimed,” OrthoChristian.Com, accessed April 6, 2016, http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/91327.htm. 44. “A Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism (B).” 428 NEVEN VUKIC the intent of the author entering into the discussion. So, for example, a scriptural source for an exclusivist claim can easily be drawn from the aforementioned John 14:6. Furthermore, regarding patristic sources, the exclusivist branch of Orthodox theology tends to lean on the works of John of Damascus, a recognized and venerated saint throughout the Chris- tian world who, because of his contributions to the iconoclastic disputes, holds a special place in Orthodox tradition. John regarded Islam as a Christian heresy, and displayed little regard for Muhammad or the Qur’an: From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammad has appeared in their midst. This man after having chanced upon the Old and New Testament and likewise, it seems, having con- versed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven.45 While all who engage with this or similar texts would be wise to take into account that the original context is in many ways incomparable to our contemporary situation, the fact remains that Damascene’s authority coupled with a clear and indisputable condemnation of Islam, provides those who would argue against interreligious dialogue with a powerful weapon. Another excellent example of how tradition, appropriated in a particular fashion, can be used to support an exclusivist position comes from the Russian Orthodox Church. The source here is a saint of the Russian Church and a prolific writer, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov (1807- 1867), who delivered quite a definite response to the question of the possibility of salvation of Muslims: Vainly and erroneously you think and say that virtuous ... Muslims will be saved, that is they will join communion with God! Vainly you consider the contrary notion a novelty, a brief error! No! Such is the eternal teaching of the true Church, both Old Testament and New. The Church has always confessed that there exists one means of salvation: the Redeemer! She has confessed that the most virtuous of the fallen really do descend to Hell.46 It is worth noting that Brianchaninov is well within what is considered proper Orthodox theology when he writes this, since he is regarded as merely repeating what is in Scripture (James 2:26), and what Chrysostom wrote centuries ago: “[I]f we take pains in life but are careless about

45. Saint John of Damascus: Writings, ed. Frederic Henry Chase, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 37 (New York, NY: Fathers of the Church, 1958), 153. 46. Ignatius Bryanchaninov, The Complete Collection of the Works of St Ignatius Bryanchaninov, vol. 8 (Moscow: Паломник, 2007), 178-185. THE PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS 429 teaching, that will not be any good to us either.”47 It is apparent from this example that the methodology employed is equally effective when arguing for an exclusivist approach to a theology of non-Christian religions. Moreover, coming from a venerated and a sanctified source, such arguments may be even more effective than when they come from contemporary theologians. However, the practice of locating theological arguments, scriptural, patristic or conciliar, in support of one’s claims is not sufficient to demonstrate that a particular claim is an element of official Orthodox doctrine, regardless of the number of such arguments or the respectability of the sources used.

1. The Problem of Sources Within the tradition of the Russian Church,48 a distinction between the personal opinions of church authors and Church doctrine is maintained, with the latter always being more authoritative than the former, regardless of the respect given to the writer in question. Therefore, regardless of the respect shown to a proponent of an inclusive theology of non- Christian religions (i.e., the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople), or the strength of his argument, his position remains only a personal opinion until an official doctrinal statement is accepted within the Orthodox oikumene. Furthermore, the sources themselves are not all equally significant or authoritative. And while the New Testament has “unconditional and indisputable doctrinal authority,” it cannot be taken as primary over Church Tradition, since it is understood that “Scripture grew out of tradition and became an inseparable part of it.”49 Moreover, regarding

47. Saint John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 1-17 (Washington, DC: Catho- lic University of America Press, 1999), 37. 48. The Russian Orthodox Church accounts for at least a half of the Orthodox faithful; therefore, the opinions and practices found within the Russian Church have immense significance for all decisions within the entire Orthodox koinonia. Furthermore, Alfeyev’s views should be taken into account, given his position as the chairman of the Department of External Church Relations and a permanent member of the Holy Synod of the Patriar- chate of Moscow, and one of the most influential hierarchs of the ROC, second possibly only to the Patriarch. A similar position on the irreducible relevance of the liturgical tradition can be found in the works of ‘conservative’ Orthodox theologians like the Serbian saint and one of the most influential 20th-century theologians, J. Popovic. Although Alfeyev’s views could be considered as ‘personal opinions’, they remain valid representations of the Tradition inasmuch they are faithful to that Tradition (i.e. they are Orthodox). Furthermore, on the topic at hand, his writing is a summary of a well-established line of thinking within Orthodox theology proper and, as such, it not only represents his views, but the Tradi- tion as understood in the Russian Church and throughout the Orthodox world. 49. Hilarion Alfeyev, Christ the Conqueror of Hell: The Descent into Hades from an Orthodox Perspective (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009), 205. 430 NEVEN VUKIC interpretation, in the same way that the Old Testament is read in the light of the New Testament, the proper reading of the New Testament is only possible in the light of tradition. The second source of doctrine that is also granted “indisputable and unconditional authority,” for the Russian Church, is the liturgical tradition. The authority of the liturgical texts is based on a centuries-long process of acceptance within the Orthodox Church.50 And herein lies the greatest ‘problem’ for any Orthodox theologian looking for a ‘middle way’, and especially for those Orthodox theologians looking for a middle way in relation to Islam. It is striking that none of the aforementioned ‘inclusivist’ theologians have turned to liturgical tradition in their argu- mentation. This in turn led Sharp to omit the liturgical tradition in his schema of the methodology of discernment in identifying Orthodox doctrine.51 Nevertheless, the liturgical tradition constitutes a ‘problem’ since there is no official ecclesial document that has a defined position regarding Islam, and Scriptural sources obviously cannot contain an explicit claim with regards to it, the liturgical tradition does, however, contain a series of texts which are not at all favourable to Islam. More on this will be said at a later point in this article. The third source, according to Alfeyev, is the dogmatic statements of both ecumenical and local councils. These statements enjoy the same level of authority inasmuch as they have gone through a similar process of acceptance as the liturgical texts. However, the statements themselves are not all of equal significance.52 Moreover, a decision of any Council, even ecumenical, could be revised or ultimately rejected. This is a process that could take decades (or even centuries), and would be very compli- cated. The complexity of the process has become clear from the events surrounding the ‘Council of Crete’. Fourth in value for the doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church are the patristic works on doctrinal questions. However, there is, again, a distinction within the works of the Fathers which determines their level of doctrinal authority: (1) works written on behalf of the Church, (2) which express general church teaching and (3) personal theological opinions. Personal opinions are not considered obligatory for the faithful; however, they are considered inasmuch as they relate to the general Church teaching. Furthermore, writings within the patristic legacy are not of equal value either. The Eastern fathers involved in the formation

50. Alfeyev, Christ the Conqueror of Hell, 206. 51. Sharp, Orthodox Christians and Islam in the Postmodern Age, 52. 52. Alfeyev, Christ the Conqueror of Hell, 206. THE PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS 431 of Orthodox dogma are held in greater esteem than those not directly involved. The legacy of the Western fathers is authoritative inasmuch as they do not contradict the teaching of the Orthodox Church.53 Other sources are the writings of the ‘teachers of the Church’ – those theologians involved in the formation of church doctrine who have not been raised to the rank of ‘Fathers’. The same distinctions in authoritative value which are applied to the works of the Fathers are also appli- cable here. The Apocrypha have a level of doctrinal authority if they have been a formative element in liturgical tradition. Theological works of contemporary or ancient theologians which help to clarify various aspects of church doctrine also have some doctrinal authority, but only if their works are faithful to church tradition.54

A Note on the Council of Crete With regard to its understanding of ecclesiology, the Orthodox Church attaches great importance to the conciliar process. It is, then, essential that we direct our attention to the events surrounding the Council of Crete, convened between June 19-26, 2016, in Kolymvari, Crete. This event was more than a century in the making and was to be the first Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church since the Second Council of Nicaea, 787.55 The goal of this section is to offer an answer to a sim- ple question: Do the documents of the Council of Crete provide an opportunity for a shift (if not a change) in Orthodox theology of interreligious dialogue? First, it will be shown why the critics of the council dispute its pan-Orthodox character and, by extension, the binding character of the documents produced. Second, a case will be made that the documents published by the Council are in some ways a departure from the proposed theologies of interreligious dialogue discussed in this article.

53. Alfeyev, Christ the Conqueror of Hell, 207. 54. Ibid., 207-208. 55. This is now debatable since one of the decisions of the Council of Crete was to elevate some of the historical local council to the same level as the Ecumenical Councils (to proclaim their universal significance). This was done on the proposal of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and includes the Fourth Council of Constantinople (879-880), the Palamite Councils (1341, 1351, 1368), the Synod of Constantinople of 1484, a number of Councils refuting Protestantism (1638, 1642, 1672, 1691) and the Synod of Constantinople of 1872. “Encyclical of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church.” Accessed November 22, 2016. https://www.holycouncil.org/-/ encyclical-holy-council. 432 NEVEN VUKIC

The Council of Crete proved to be a very controversial event, and there are many who question whether it qualifies as a ‘council’ at all.56 On the eve of the Council, several Churches decided not to attend the event and called for its postponement until issues surrounding several key documents, which were supposed to be produced by the Council, were resolved. One of these Churches was the Russian Orthodox Church, by far the largest Orthodox Church in the world in terms of its members. Other absentees included the Antiochian, Georgian and Bulgarian Orthodox Churches. Their absence, and several other factors, meant that the status of the Council, and the binding character of its documents, are much disputed. Additionally, the absence of the representatives of the Church of Antioch meant that one of the two57 most prominent individuals involved in the development of an Orthodox theology of interreligious dialogue, metropolitan George Khodr (of Mt Lebanon), was absent from the Council. Although some miniscule traces of the proposed theologies of interreligious dialogue are present, the documents produced by the Council were a far cry from what the expectations had been. The first departure from the proposed theologies of interreligious dialogue concerned the very goal of any such dialogue. This was clearly evident in the absence of any reference to Khodr’s proposal regarding the search for the ‘voice of God’ in other religions.58 The Crete documents clearly state that the goal of any dialogue with the non-Orthodox should be an attempt by the members of the Orthodox Church to translate “the divine economy into concrete actions using all means at her disposal to give a trustworthy witness to the truth, in the precision of the apostolic faith.”59 Essentially, it would seem, there is nothing to be found in dialogue as such. What really counts is the opportunity to ‘give witness’

56. “Round Table on ‘Why the Council on Crete Has Not Become a Pan-Ortho- dox Council?’ | The Russian Orthodox Church,” accessed November 7, 2017, https:// mospat.ru/en/2016/06/18/news133082/; “Message of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill to Primates and Representatives of Local Orthodox Churches Who Have Assembled in Crete / Патриарх / Патриархия.ru,” Патриархия.ru, accessed November 22, 2016, http://sobor2016.patriarchia.ru/en/db/text/4541219.html; “Union of Orthodox Clergy and Monks of Greece: Crete Council Not a Real Council,” OrthoChristian.Com, accessed November 7, 2017, http://orthochristian.com/94981.html; “Declaration of the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church on the Council of Crete (2016) and the text ‘Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World’,” OrthoChris- tian.Com, accessed November 7, 2017, http://orthochristian.com/99098.html. 57. The other being Anastasios Yannoulatos of the Church of Albania. 58. Khodr, “Christianity in a Pluralistic World – The Economy of the Holy Spirit,” 125: “Christ is hidden everywhere in the mystery of his lowliness. Any reading of religions is a reading of Christ. It is Christ alone who is received as light when grace visits a Brahmin, a Buddhist or a Muhammadan reading his own scriptures.” 59. “Encyclical of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church.” THE PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS 433 to the fullness of the truth already found in the Orthodox Church. Whereas the proposal by Khodr contained an active element, a directive to ‘go out’ and ‘seek’, the Council’s statement falls back on the established practice of ‘keeping indoors’ and letting those who have an interest in dialogue approach of their own accord. Clearly, the issue at stake here is the goal of dialogue. It is also clear that this decision will inevi- tably have an effect on the mission theology of the Orthodox Church. The only other document produced by the Council, which is of real significance for our topic, is “The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World.” While the term ‘inter-religious dialogue’ is mentioned in a few other places, this document is the one which has the greatest relevance for the future of missiology and, more importantly, the development of the Orthodox theology of interreligious dialogue. In the document, the proposed theologies of interreligious dialogue mentioned at the beginning of this article, including a pneumatological approach, i.e. the idea of the Holy Spirit at work outside the Church, were dismissed in favour of a theology based on the dignity of the human person.60 The document’s basis for the ‘unique dignity’ of the human person is the fact that this dignity comes from ‘being created in the image and likeness of God’. In spite of its relatively conservative approach, this document proved to be one of the more controversial ones of the entire Council.61 The contro- versy concerned, above all, the decision to adopt the term ‘human person’, anthrōpino prosōpo, instead of the term, ‘human being’, anthrōpos, and it escalated into a dispute at the council that was reported to have been one of the livelier ones to occur.62 The only other document which created

60. The section is entitled “The Dignity of the Human Person,” and the relevant paragraph states: “As a presupposition for a wider co-operation in this regard the com- mon acceptance of the highest value of the human person may be useful. The various local Orthodox Churches can contribute to inter-religious understanding and co-operation for the peaceful co-existence and harmonious living together in society, without this involving any religious syncretism.” 61. Combined with the document on relations of the Orthodox Church to non- Orthodox Christians and the document on marriage. 62. Public Orthodoxy, “Human Beings or Human Persons?,” Public Orthodoxy (blog), June 6, 2017, https://publicorthodoxy.org/2017/06/06/human-beings-or-persons/. While the Metropolitan of Pergamon, John Zizioulas, argued in favour of the former, the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos, Hierotheos Vlachos, argued for the latter. Prior to the Council, in May 2016 the Church of Greece, at the urging of Metropolitan Hierotheos and others, accepted that all references in Council documents to ‘human person’ should be changed to ‘human being’. Vlachos advances two reasons for rejecting references to humans as persons. First, the ancient Fathers attributed the term person (prosopon) to the Persons of the Holy Trinity, and used the biblical term human being (anthrōpos) (lxx) for humans. He dismisses the significance of the occasional patristic use of the more abstract term hypostasis for human beings, also employed for the Persons 434 NEVEN VUKIC greater discord was the document entitled, “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World,” which dealt with ecumenism and the relations to the World Council of Churches. Although there were disagreements about their contents, the above- mentioned documents were ratified by the Council. The result was that a number of Council participants decided to withhold their signatures of approval from the disputed documents.63 The documents were approved without consensus. This provided additional material for the critics of the Council and its documents.64 The criticism was aimed initially only at the content of the documents, but this was then extended to perceived procedural errors as well. Although a council was convened, there is no certainty that the decisions of this council will be upheld given that the local Orthodox Churches need to confirm them. The lack of consensus is especially problematic since, according to the critics, until a ‘consensus of the Church’ or a (con)sensus fidelium, to use an analogous Roman Catholic term, exists with regards to any particular matter the council cannot proclaim it to be truthful. This means that both the clergy and the faithful need to be in agreement. Eastern Orthodox Christianity stresses the guidance of the Holy Spirit in most of its major decisions. It may be helpful to examine Meyen- dorff’s assessment of the criterion of the Truth within Orthodoxy: In the Orthodox Church, on the other hand, no power can exist by divine right outside and above the local Eucharistic community, which corresponds today to what we call the diocese. … There does not exist, therefore, any visible criterion of the Truth, apart from the consensus of the Church, the normal organ of which is the ecumenical council. But this council … is not an authority ex sese, outside and above of the local churches; it is merely an expression of their accord. of the Trinity. For Vlachos, it is unacceptable to identify and name humans as persons, since this appears to put them on the same level as the divine Persons. So humans must be thought of simply as anthrōpoi (human beings); they do not, in Christos Yannaras’ terminology, have a personal ‘mode of existence’ analogous to the Persons of the Holy Trinity. “Human Beings or Human Persons?,” Public Orthodoxy, June 6, 2017, https:// publicorthodoxy.org/2017/06/06/human-beings-or-persons/. 63. “Updated: Seven Metropolitans Withheld Signatures from Pan-Orthodox Council Documents,” OrthoChristian.Com, accessed November 7, 2017, http:// orthochristian.com/94770.html. 64. “Round Table on ‘Why the Council on Crete Has Not Become a Pan-Ortho- dox Council?’”; “Message of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill to Primates and Representa- tives of Local Orthodox Churches Who Have Assembled in Crete / Патриарх / Патриархия.ru”; “Union of Orthodox Clergy and Monks of Greece”; “Declaration of the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church on the Council of Crete (2016) and the Text ‘“elations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World,” OrthoChristian.com. THE PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS 435

A council which considers itself formally ‘ecumenical’ may even be rejected by the Church (examples: Ephesus in 449, Florence in 1438). The permanence of Truth is thus a fact of a supernatural order, similar in every respect to the nature of the sacrament. It can be detected by religious experience, but is not amenable to rational explanation or capable of being subjugated to legal norms.65 In conclusion, the answer to the question proposed at the beginning of this essay is that nothing has changed and there has been no significant shift in Orthodox theological approaches to interreligious dialogue. If anything, the prospects for an official Orthodox theology of interreligious dialogue have gotten even slimmer. And while the Council did meet and produced a document that deals with the issue, what it proposed is disputed and has no official status. There are three reasons for this: the questionable status of the Council; the disputed contents of the documents produced; and the state of relations between the particular Churches of the Orthodox oikumene.

2. The ‘God-Anathema’ Orthodox liturgical texts are, as mentioned above, one of the most important doctrinal authorities within Orthodox tradition, second only to Scripture. Within the liturgical tradition there are indeed texts related to Islam and these may be divided into two main groups: those directly related to Islam (acts of renouncing Islam), and those indirectly related to Islam (such as services for those killed by Muslims, polemics, etc.). Among all of these, the text used for cases of conversions from Islam to Orthodoxy presents a major challenge for contemporary Muslim-Ortho- dox Christian dialogue. The text itself was probably formed in the mid- 9th century, on the basis of the work of St. John of Damascus, George Hamartolos, and Nicetas of Byzantium. It is essentially composed of a set of rejections of various elements of Islam which are to be proclaimed by the candidate in the form of anathemas.66 The text continued to be used in its original form well into the 12th century when Michael I Komnenos, the Byzantine emperor, insisted on removing the anathema of the ‘god of Muhammad’ from the text.67 A local council, which was

65. John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church: Its Past and Its Role in the World Today (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1981), 194. 66. Yuri Maksimov, “Islam in the Liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church,” Pra- voslavie.ru, 2007, http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/071010152314.htm. 67. Nicetas Choniates, O City of Byzantium: Annals of Niketas Choniatēs, trans. Harry J. Magoulias (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1984), 121-124. 436 NEVEN VUKIC convened in Constantinople during that period at the emperor’s request, regarding the anathema of the ‘god of Muhammad’ (i.e. the god-anathema) was held and the replacement of the anathema was approved. In approving this decision in the form of a conciliar document the Church effectively retained, in a formal fashion, the other anathemas directed to Muhammad, his teachings, and his followers. These now found their way into an official doctrinal document. Niketas Choniates, who was a contemporary of these events, recorded this particular episode in his annals: After a long delay, they barely agreed to remove the anathema of Muhammad’s god from the catechetical books and to write in the anathema of Muhammad and of all his teachings. Having proclaimed and confirmed this doctrine, the many synods and assemblies came to an end.68 There is a need for a study which would focus on the acceptance of this particular conciliar statement within the Orthodox oikumene, since a decision of any council requires confirmation of a particular church in order to have doctrinal authority for that church. However, since the statement was pronounced by the council within the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, it has a certain level of authority within the doctrinal tradition of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Furthermore, not only has this decision ultimately provided a conciliar document which contains anathemas of everything in Islam excepting the ‘god of Muham- mad’, the ‘god-anathema’ endured in liturgical practice. Ultimately the anathema of the ‘god of Muhammad’ was to be found in other versions of the text centuries later. When St. Sava made his “Zakonopravilo,” a version of the Nomocanon69 adapted for the needs of the medieval Serbian state, he included the text of the renunciation of Islam – with the ‘god-anathema’. The translation of St. Sava spread throughout the Slavic lands, and eventually found its way into Russia. In addition to the version adapted from St. Sava, another version of the text is found in the “Veliki Trebnyk” of St. Peter Mogila from the 17th century. While the differences are plentiful and various – the ‘Saracens’ of the original text were replaced by the ‘Turcs’, there is no mention of the

68. Nicetas Choniates, O City of Byzantium, 123. 69. The “Nomocanon is a Byzantine collection of ecclesiastical legislation (can- ons) and civil laws (Greek nomoi) related to the Christian church. The nomocanon in its various redactions served as a legal text in the Eastern church until the 18th century. In form and content it reflected a tight alliance between church and state and met the requirements of judges and lawyers obliged to use simultaneously the ecclesiastical can- ons and the imperial laws.” Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. “nomocanon,” accessed April 15, 2016, http://www.britannica.com/topic/nomocanon. THE PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS 437 angel Gabriel, various Qur’anic details are absent – Mogila’s text has more frequent anathemas of Muhammad, and the ‘god-anathema’ is present in a slightly different form. The original Byzantine rite, although slightly modified, is apparently still present in modern service books of the Russian Orthodox Church.70 While some Orthodox churches may have removed the text of con- version from their more recent editions of service books, there are still versions of the Trebnik which contain the prayer in use, at least in the Russian and Serbian Churches and in the Orthodox Church of America.71 An edition of the Trebnik from the year 200072 still contains ‘special- ized’ services for those coming from other faiths. One set of services and liturgical material is meant to be used by non-orthodox Christians, and another for those coming to Orthodoxy from Judaism, Islam and pagan- ism. In much the same fashion as in the older version, the candidate is required to renounce their previous ‘faith’ in order to be accepted into the Orthodox Church. While there is a considerable change in the tone of the formulas the candidate is supposed to pronounce as the revised versions are no longer written in the form of anathemas and are not so detailed in the condemnation of Islam and its beliefs, even in their current form they may be perceived as problematic with respect to an inclusive theology of non-Christian religions and genuine interreligious dialogue. In order to show how this rite could be perceived as problematic we will present it here, in its current form. After the initial rite, in which the candidate expresses his or her desire to be accepted into the Church, a period of instruction is to follow during which time he or she is to be initiated into the Orthodox faith. Following that a ‘first catechesis’ takes place, during which a candidate coming from the Islamic faith is required to renounce the Islamic faith, the prophet Muhammed, the Qur’an, the teaching of the salvific value of the Hajj, the teaching of Islam on marriage and the afterlife, and the teaching of Islam on Christianity. The rite is performed in the form of questions asked by the bishop or priest, and answers given by the catechumen. Q: Do you renounce the Islamic faith and all its deceptive reasonings, and do you forsake it utterly?

70. Maksimov, “Islam in the Liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church.” 71. Ibid.; Bishop Artemije, ed., Veliki Trebnik, trans. Justin Popovich (Manastir Ćelije, Valjevo: Eparhija Rasko-Prizrenska, 1993); The Great Book of Needs, Expanded and Supplemented - Volume I: The Holy Myteries (South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon’s Mon- astery Press, 2000). 72. The Great Book of Needs, Expanded and Supplemented - Volume I The Holy Mysteries. 438 NEVEN VUKIC

A: I cast away the Islamic faith and its deceptive reasonings and I forsake it. Q: Do you renounce Mohammad, as being a false prophet? A: I consider him to be a false prophet, and I renounce him. Q: Do you renounce the book, called the Koran, and all false legend, laws and traditions contained therein? A: I renounce the Koran, and all false legend, laws and traditions contained therein, and I cast them away as being harmful to the soul. Q: Do you renounce the Islamic directive concerning the pilgrimage to Mecca for the sake of worship, as being salutary for the soul? A: I renounce this as being superstition. Q: Do you renounce the seductive Islamic doctrines concerning polygamy in this life, and the sensual pleasures in Paradise after death? A: I renounce this, and this doctrine concerning imaginary fleshly pleasure, I cast away. Q: Do you renounce all falsehood and blasphemies which Islamic peoples spit out against Christ, his Most-pure Mother, and Christians? A: I renounce them.73 The second catechesis, which precedes the rite of baptism, is concluded with a formula which the catechumen is expected to say aloud, and also contains a condemnation of Islam as being a false belief: “I N., who have come from Islam to the Christian faith, do proclaim today, before the All-seeing God, my oath that I renounce the Islamic false belief, and all the heresies and evil blasphemies contained therein … and if hereafter I shall dare to renounce the Christian faith and return again to Islam, may the wrath of God and eternal condemnation overtake me. Amen.”74 It goes without saying that further research is required to determine whether there have been any official statements regarding the validity of the rite or its revision for each particular church. Furthermore, the same is required for any potential statements regarding the decisions of the 1180 council of Constantinople on either the level of particular churches or the entire Orthodox oikumene. On the other hand, considering that, in Alfeyev’s opinion, liturgical texts have an “indisputable and unconditional doctrinal authority” and that these texts are some of the more ancient liturgical texts within the entire Orthodox liturgical tradition, one can see how such a text might pose a major problem for any ‘inclusive’ Orthodox theology of non-Christian religions focused on Islam. More over, in addition to what is currently a 1200-year-old liturgical text,

73. The Great Book of Needs, 102-103. 74. Ibid.,108. THE PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS 439 there is the issue of the 1180 conciliar document, which is to date the only official document of the Orthodox Church regarding Islam, and which contains a condemnation of Muhammad, his teachings and his followers. It is not an exaggeration to say that, in light of Orthodox doctrinal tradition, the text and the council’s statement threaten to reduce any attempt at an inclusive theology to the level of either a personal opinion,75 or, as it is portrayed in the Confession, a heresy.76 Due to the lack of an ‘official’ Orthodox theology of non-Christian religions, and a general rise in interest in interreligious dialogue, it is not unusual that the practices found within the Orthodox Christian tradition have become topics of research for a number of scholars. Moreover, it should not come as a surprise that Orthodox theologians have made attempts to develop a theology of non-Christian religions that would be within the confines of recognized Orthodox tradition. The results are visible in the so-called ‘middle-way’ theology that has attempted to grant some level of salvific value to non-Christian religions on the grounds of varying theological sources (Scripture, patristics, Trinitarian theology). These results were noted and analysed in recent ‘Western’ studies as well. 77 However, regrettably, the promise of an Orthodox theology of interreligious dialogue remains, at this point, only a promise and one which, it would seem, is not likely to be realized any time soon. These are only some of the pitfalls in the way of delivering on that promise: the opposition to any kind of ‘inclusive’ theology is far more widespread and influential than is usually acknowledged. Furthermore, as long as there is no decision of an ecumenical council that is accepted and confirmed throughout the entire Orthodox oikumene, one cannot speak of an Orthodox theology of interreligious dialogue. The opinions of Orthodox theologians, regardless of their rank or status are, ultimately, simply ‘opinions’ which have little or no dogmatic value. There are very strong elements within the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox oikumene that clearly stand in the way of any inclusive theology of non- Christian religions, and consequently interreligious dialogue. Therefore, until a theology of non-Christian religions appears which reflects upon, and deals with these elements there is little hope of taking any significant step forward in interreligious dialogue with non-Christian religions. Last, but certainly not least, if a change is to come, and if it is to be

75. Alfeyev, Christ the Conqueror of Hell, 205-208. 76. “A Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism (B).” 77. Sharp, Orthodox Christians and Islam in the Postmodern Age; Sharp, “Modern Encounters with Islam and the Impact on Orthodox Thought, Identity, and Action.” 440 NEVEN VUKIC acceptable throughout the Orthodox World, it needs to be endorsed by the Moscow Patriarchate which holds a level of influence that rivals (if not supersedes) that of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.78

Neven Vukic (Brcko, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1985) is an FWO doctoral researcher at the KU Leuven’s Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies. Within the Research Unit Systematic Theology and the Study of Religions, he is a member of the Interdisciplinary Research Project, “The Crisis of Religion and the Problem of Roman Catholic Self-Definition.” His research interests include: Orthodox Christianity, theology of interreligious dialogue, and peace studies. Other publications: “The Russian Orthodox Church and Interreligious Dialogue,” Exchange 46 (2017): 157-179. Address: Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven, Sint-Michielsstraat 4 box 3101, BE-3000 Leuven, Belgium. Email: [email protected].

78. Ioannis Zizioulas, “Theological Dialogue with Catholics Risks Failure,” inter- view by Gianni Valente, Vatican Insider, February 26, 2014, http://vaticaninsider. lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/zizioulas-32365/.