Orthodox Christianity and Social Science

Overcoming Older Complications and Attempting a Productive Interaction

Vasilios N. Makrides *

The State of the Question

What is the relationship between Orthodox Christianity and the broad domain of social science? Is there a real interaction between contemporary Orthodox thought and the numerous scholarly disciplines that fall under the broad umbrella of social science? In fact, the latter, also used in plural form, includes quite diverse branches, ranging from anthropology, sociology and psychology up to political science, human geography and communication studies. It is about academic disciplines that have become autonomous and experienced quite major developments, especially during the twentieth century and up until today. All this has had far-reaching consequences at an interdisciplinary level in many other scholarly domains.1 It is certainly not possible to examine within the limited scope and space of a single paper whether the findings of these numerous disciplines have been taken into account by contemporary Orthodox thought. Yet, it is still possible to present and discuss various aspects of this topic. In this paper, however, I will only take into account the perspectives of the Orthodox Christian side, and not those stemming from outside. In actual fact, Orthodox Christianity has increasingly become the object of research from a social scientific perspective during the last three decades in the wake of the radical changes in the former communist countries of Eastern and South Eastern Europe – yet, in this paper, I can only partially and selectively discuss the findings.

* University of Erfurt. 1 Elgin F. Hunt, David C. Colander, Social Science: An Introduction to the Study of Society (Boston/MA, 2008); Roger E. Backhouse, Philippe Fontaine, eds., The History of the Social Sciences since 1945 (Cambridge, 2010). 138 Vasilios N. Makrides

We might pose from the outset the following questions: Why should Orthodox Christianity consider and reflect on the findings that research in the social sciences has produced? Is this an absolute must for its social image, presence and influence? Or, alternatively, can it survive and simply go on without taking all these worldly developments into consideration? It goes without saying that the answers to these questions need to examine the overall attitude of Orthodox Christianity towards the world as such and its related evaluation. In fact, this has been a perennial issue in the history of Christianity and has been addressed variously by Christian Churches and actors across history in East and West respectively. In addition, various strategies were deployed, aimed at addressing and, if possible, solving specific social problems and impasses. At the same time, it is also true that opinions within Christianity generally vary enough with regard to the appropriate attitude towards the world. The dialectic of living in the world and not being of this world (cf. John 17:14-15) has always constituted a dilemma for the various Christian Churches and actors across time, and this also holds true for today. At times and in specific contexts, other- and outerworldly orientations held priority, whereas in other instances more worldly attitudes dominated the field of Christian social presence and action. The whole dilemma has been succinctly summarized by the Russian Orthodox theologian Georges V. Florovsky in his exposition of the antinomies between the “empire” and the “desert” in the development of the early Church.2 Needless to say, the entire issue is not marginal but central, and is closely related to the need for a contextualization of the Christian message, a process that essentially presupposes a rather constructive, if not categorically positive, evaluation and appropriation of the surrounding social environment and the world at large. Nevertheless, the whole topic has been, and still is, plagued by numerous debates among the Christian Churches including mutual criticisms. On the one hand, the Orthodox usually criticize Western Latin Churches for introducing worldliness and secularization to Church life, for deploying strong social activism and for forgetting the vital domain of escha- tology. On the other hand, Western Christians criticize the Orthodox Church for preferring and practicing an otherworldly escapism while

2 Georges V. Florovsky, ‘Empire and Desert: Antinomies of Christian History’, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 3 (1957), pp. 133-159. Orthodox Christianity and Social Science 139 avoiding social problems.3 Regardless of the correctness of such mutual criticisms, it is obvious that we are dealing here with various facets and processes of a contextualization of Christianity. It becomes evident, then, that not every contextualization is positive, welcome and acceptable, at least from an Orthodox Christian perspective, and the question is why. To begin with, the expression “contextual theology” is not unknown today in Orthodox thought and vocabulary.4 Various practices of a contextualization of the Christian message can be located in the history of Eastern Orthodox Christianity; for example, in the encounter between Hellenism and early Christianity and the decisive appropriation of the former by the latter.5 Another case in point concerns the Orthodox Christian missions in which a model of contextualization had been applied early enough and which has mutatis mutandis remained dominant in the Eastern Orthodox theology of mission. Charac- teristically enough, going back in history, we can see that the Orthodox East has proven to be much more contextual than the Latin West, which appeared to be more inflexible, authoritative and uniformist with regard to local cultures which were to be christianized.6

Developments in East and West: a Comparison

In order to understand the differences between East and West on this point, not least with regard to the appropriation of social science, it is vital to

3 On this topic in history and at present, see John Meyendorff, ‘The Christian Gospel and Social Responsibility: The Eastern Orthodox Tradition in History’, in Continuity and Discon- tinuity in Church History: Essays presented to George Huntston Williams on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, eds. F. Forrester Church and Timothy George (Leiden, 1979), pp. 118-130; Klaus Gnoth, Antwort vom Athos: Die Bedeutung des heutigen griechisch-orthodoxen Mönchtums für Kirche und Gesellschaft nach der Schrift des Athosmönchs Theoklitos Dionysiatis ‘Metaxy oura- nou kai gēs’ (Zwischen Himmel und Erde) (Göttingen, 1990). 4 See, for example, Nikos Nissiotis, ‘Ecclesial Theology in Context’, in Doing Theology Today, ed. Choan-Seng Song (Madras, 1976), pp. 101-124; Petros Vassiliadis, ‘Orthodoxie und kontextuelle Theologie’, Ökumenische Rundschau, 42 (1993), pp. 452-460. 5 Jaroslav Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism (New Haven/CT and London, 1993). 6 Vasilios N. Makrides, ‘The “Individuality of Local Cultures”. Perceptions, Policies and Attitudes in the Context of Orthodox Christian Missions’, in Individualisierung durch christliche Mission?, eds. Martin Fuchs, Antje Linkenbach and Wolfgang Reinhard (Wies- baden, 2015), pp. 152-169. 140 Vasilios N. Makrides distinguish between pre-modern and modern forms of contextualization. In short, the discrepancy between East and West should be understood with reference to the radical transition that has taken place since the beginning of the modern era, and the concomitant changes that have profoundly affected the profile of Western Christianity as a whole, namely both Roman Catholi- cism and Protestantism. It is about the encounter with modernity, including its critical antireligious side, with which Western Churches had a conflictual, yet in the long run constructive and productive, encounter. This long process forced them to develop new contextual strategies to disseminate their message to the modern secular world successfully. It is in this frame that modern contextual theologies (from liberation to feminist) were articulated, which sometimes even took on quite radical and controversial forms, especially among Protestants. All this went hand in hand with the gradual accommoda- tion of Western Christianity with modernity, which deeply affected its attitude towards the world. In other words, Western Christianity became worldlier in modern times by deepening even further its traditionally exhibited world- relatedness. In fact, the Reformation was instrumental in bringing about these fundamental changes with far-reaching consequences. It is therefore not accidental that Western Christianity showed a deep interest in systema- tizing its social doctrine and ethics, and in developing further its social and political theology in order to respond successfully to the new challenges. Interestingly enough, social science is the outcome and the product of West- ern modernity, and it therefore owes much to the profound changes that took place in Western Europe during this long period of time. As a result, in the process of formulating contextual theologies, Western Churches took full account of various advances in the social sciences, despite the fact that initially this had mostly developed in a secular, if not antireligious, frame. All this may explain why Western contextual theology became so innovative, inventful and progressive in the course of modern times. If we now look at Orthodox Christianity, it is not difficult to see some fundamental differences with the situation in the West. Despite its own traditional contextual logic and practices, Orthodox Christianity had a limited and fragmentary encounter with modernity for historical reasons. Hence, it could not profit from it in the way and to the degree that this was possible for Western Christianity. This had an immediate impact upon the future of its contextual theology, as well as its reconfiguration and renewed Orthodox Christianity and Social Science 141 articulation in the modern era. The contextual creativity and inventiveness of the pre-modern era gave way in most cases to traditionalism coupled with a pervasive fixation on past achievements, Patristic and otherwise. This went hand in hand with the intensification of other- and outerworldly orientations, which traditionally had a strong presence within the Orthodox religious system in any event.7 In addition, there was an open aversion towards Western contextual theological attempts because of the influential Orthodox anti-Westernism and the different experience with modernity. In many cases, modern Western developments were collectively considered in a negative sense as innovative, ill-fated, wrong and dangerous for Orthodoxy, the sole and exclusive right faith – namely, as products of a fallen world. In short, all these factors contributed to the articulation of a traditionalist Orthodox profile in modern times, which for the most part lacked renewal, neglected social reality, and justified its related positions theologically.8 It is therefore not accidental that the Orthodox world lacked a systematic social teaching until the Russian Orthodox Church attempted this for the first time in 2000.9 Consequently, this situation is not unrelated to the fact that Ortho- dox Churches and actors usually attempted a very limited and selective use of the advances in modern social science (e.g., sociology of religion10), given that this originally came from the Western intellectual tradition. On the one hand, there was a general mistrust of such forms of mundane knowledge; and, on the other, a very specific instrumentalization of selected elements of social science for Church purposes, practical and otherwise. A more systematic, serious and deep evaluation of modern social science has therefore been mostly omitted from modern Orthodox concerns. The whole terrain has

7 Demosthenes Savramis, ‘Max Webers Beitrag zum besseren Verständnis der ostkirchlichen “außerweltlichen” Askese’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie (Sonderheft), 7 (1963), pp. 334-358. 8 Vasilios N. Makrides, ‘Orthodox Christianity, Modernity and Postmodernity: Overview, Analysis and Assessment’, Religion, State & Society, 40 (2012), pp. 248-285. 9 Vasilios N. Makrides, ‘Why Does the Orthodox Church Lack Systematic Social Teaching?’, Skepsis: A Journal for Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Research, 23 (2013), pp. 281-312. 10 Vasilios N. Makrides, ‘Ambiguous Reception and Troublesome Relationship: The Soci- ology of Religion in Eastern Orthodox Europe’, in Sociology and Religions: An Ambiguous Relationship, eds. Liliane Voyé and Jaak Billiet, KADOC-studies, 23 (Leuven, 1999), pp. 139-154. 142 Vasilios N. Makrides undoubtedly changed in the last few decades,11 and yet there is still much to do, which is vital for the development of a modern and viable Orthodox contextual theology. As far as social science is specifically concerned, we should keep in mind that we are talking about various scholarly disciplines which started to develop autonomously from the second half of the nineteenth century within the frame of West European modernity. This gradually led to their institutionalization within academia and massive development during the twentieth century. In this context and regardless of its potential Christian roots and foundations,12 social science developed from the outset with a critical attitude towards established Western Christianity and religions in general, although in fact religions became the object of systematic social scientific research and investigation.13 This holds true, for example, for sociology, if we consider the views of Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer and Émile Dur- kheim, and the social criticism of such figures as Karl Marx.14 The French sociological and anthropological tradition, despite its strong preoccupation with the notion of the sacred and its impact on societal processes, was basically established by non-believing scholars.15 On the other hand, Max Weber took a ‘friendlier’ attitude towards religions and sought to locate the influence of Western Christianity (especially of Protestantism) on the emergence of modernity and its various distinctive processes (rationalization, secularization, etc.).16 But, again, it was about examining religious phenomena within their earthly and contingent dimensions, and not with reference to the supernatural. All this created enough tension between social science and Christian

11 For an interesting contemporary attempt from Orthodox Serbia, see Dragoljub B. Djordjević, Miloš Jovanović, eds., Mogućnosti i dometi socijalnog učenja Pravoslavlja i Pra- voslavne Crkve (Beograd, 2010). 12 Eduard Heimann, ‘Christian Foundations of the Social Sciences’, Social Research, 26 (1959), pp. 325-346. 13 Rodney Stark, ‘Atheism, Faith, and the Social Scientific Study of Religion’, Journal of Contemporary Religion, 14 (1999), pp. 41-62. 14 Karl-Wilhelm Dahm, Volker Drehsen, Günter Kehrer, Das Jenseits der Gesellschaft: Religion im Prozeß sozialwissenschaftlicher Kritik (München, 1975). 15 Alexander Riley, Godless Intellectuals? The Intellectual Pursuit of the Sacred Reinvented (New York, 2012). 16 Hartmut Lehmann, Jean Martin Ouédraogo, eds., Max Webers Religionssoziologie in interkultureller Perspektive (Göttingen, 2003). Orthodox Christianity and Social Science 143 theology, and yet at the same time there were some positive interactions with Protestant liberal theology, which tried to engage in a more fruitful dialogue with secular culture in order to disseminate the Christian message.17 The work of the Protestant theologian Ernst Troeltsch, who stood in close intellectual contact with Max Weber, is a case in point.18 Analogous developments took place later on within Roman Catholicism, which, despite serious problems with modernity, gradually opened itself and enabled several positive interactions.19 In general, sociological research on religion, especially quantitative, was regarded as vital for the practical work of the Church and its dealing with pressing social issues. It is therefore not unusual to find related academic branches within Protestant or Roman Catholic academia nowadays, such as Church Sociology, Pastoral Sociology, Pastoral Psychol- ogy, Christian Social Science, and so on. Interestingly enough, some well- known associations today (the Société Internationale de Sociologie des Reli- gions, the Association for the Sociology of Religion, the Religious Research Association) and journals (Social Compass, Sociological Analysis/Sociology of Religion, Review of Religious Research) in the field of the sociology of religion in Western Europe and the USA were initiated by various Western Christian actors, Catholics and Protestants alike, before gaining autonomy from religious and Church objectives on a greater scale later on.20 There was clearly a transition from a Church-related sociology to a more neutral sociology of religion. In the end, this situation is not unrelated to the greater awareness of social issues generally among Western Churches. Things no doubt appear to be much more balanced and flexible today than in the past, and this reflects the greater variety of attitudes among social scientists today vis-à-vis Christianity and religions in general. It is true that social science is practiced today in purely secular academic settings, and that

17 William Reginald Ward, Theology, Sociology and Politics: The German Protestant Social Conscience, 1890–1933 (Bern, 1979). 18 Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, Fachmenschenfreundschaft: Studien zu Troeltsch und Weber (Berlin, 2014). 19 Stephen Richard Sharkey, ed., Sociology and Catholic Social Teaching: Contemporary Theory and Research (Lanham/MD, 2012). 20 See various articles in the journals Social Compass, 37/1 (1990) and 51/1 (2004); Socio- logical Analysis, 50/4 (1989) and 51 (1990) (Supplement), and Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39/4 (2000). 144 Vasilios N. Makrides social scientists show in general greater irreligiosity than natural scientists.21 Yet, this has not prohibited some of the most prominent sociologists today, Peter L. Berger22 and David Martin,23 from expressing quite sympathetic views about Christian theology and working towards bridging the gap between their own religious convictions and sociological research. The same can be mutatis mutandis observed among other leading sociologists,24 although such attitudes were also criticized by others.25 Similar positive evaluations of religions can also be observed among modern secular thinkers, who, despite their denial of the dogmatic, metaphysical superstructure of religions, still think that these can be useful in many ways from a pragmatic, practical point of view, both individually and socially. This is the case with Jürgen Habermas and his views about the postsecular condition. More specifically, he asked secular thinkers to consider religious discourse more seriously than before in case a broader social consensus among various disparate actors is in fact aspired to.26 On the other hand, some current Christian theologians have also expressed quite critical views about modern social science. A case in point is the severe criticism formulated by John Milbank,

21 Rodney Stark, Roger Finke, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2000), pp. 52-56. 22 Peter L. Berger, ‘Sociology and Theology’, Theology Today, 24 (1967), pp. 329-333; Idem, ‘Secular Theology and the Rejection of the Supernatural: Reflections on Recent Trends’, Theological Studies, 38 (1977), pp. 39-56; Idem, Questions of Faith: A Skeptical Affirmation of Christianity (Malden/MA, 2004); Idem, Between Relativism and Fundamentalism: Religious Resources for a Middle Position (Grand Rapids/MI, 2010); Idem, Anton C. Zijderveld, In Praise of Doubt: How to Have Convictions Without Becoming a Fanatic (New York, 2010). 23 David Martin, Reflections on Sociology and Theology (Oxford, 1997); Idem, Christian Lan- guage and its Mutations: Essays in Sociological Understanding (Aldershot, 2002); Idem, The Future of Christianity: Reflections on Violence and Democracy, Religion and Secularization (Farn- ham, 2011). See also Idem, John Orme Mills, W.S.F. Pickering, eds., Sociology and Theology: Alliance and Conflict (Brighton, 1980). 24 Hans Joas, Braucht der Mensch Religion? Über Erfahrungen der Selbsttranszendenz (Freiburg im Breisgau, 2004), and Idem, Glaube als Option. Zukunftsmöglichkeiten des Christentums (Freiburg im Breisgau, 2012). See also Karl Gabriel, Hans-Richard Reuter, eds., Religion und Gesellschaft. Texte zur Religionssoziologie, 2nd ed. (Paderborn, 2010). 25 Jonathan D. Harrop, ‘The Limits of Sociology in the Work of David Martin’, Religion, 17 (1987), pp. 173-192; David W. Smith, ‘In Praise of Ambiguity: A Response to Jonathan Harrop’s Critique of the Sociology of David Martin’, Religion, 18 (1988), pp. 81-85. 26 Jürgen Habermas, Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion (Frankfurt am Main, 2005), pp. 119-154; Michael Reder, Josef Schmidt, eds., Ein Bewußtsein von dem, was fehlt. Eine Diskussion mit Jürgen Habermas (Frankfurt am Main, 2008). Orthodox Christianity and Social Science 145 a leading figure in the Anglo-Catholic Radical Orthodoxy theological movement, who has written a comprehensive review of the development of modern social thought. At the same time, though, he offered a stark criticism of its dominant paradigms and the inherent limits of its acclaimed accomplish- ments. In modern times, Milbank argued, the social sciences have sought to explain religion from a neutral, secular vantage-point. In response and due to a defensive attitude, modern theology has tried to legitimate itself by building upon such social scientific conclusions, which is rather deficient for the true purpose of Christian theology and the necessary balance between the natural and the supernatural.27 However, his ideas have been criticized as falling victim to a sophisticated crypto-fundamentalism, when there certainly are other more constructive options for theology to discuss with modern social science.28 Without taking sides, it is obvious that the entire related scene in the West today is far from uniform and that the above examples attest to the variety of positions in the relations between Christian theology and social science.

Orthodox Appropriations of Social Science: Some Examples

As was the case with many academic disciplines which were first articulated and developed within the Western intellectual tradition and academia, social science and its particular disciplinary focuses were gradually introduced into countries with a predominant Eastern Orthodox tradition, yet with considerable delay. Considering the traditional Eastern Orthodox suspicion towards the modern intellectual products of Western Christianity and world, it is therefore not surprising that it took some time before a more substantial encounter between social science and Orthodox Christianity could be made. All in all, this took place in the course of the twentieth century, especially after World War II. This delay was partly due to specific historical developments, such as the long communist rule in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, which were basically secluded from Western developments for a long time,

27 John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 2011), and Idem, Beyond Secular Order: The Representation of Being and the Representation of the People (Hoboken/NY, 2013). See also James K. A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology (Grand Rapids/MI, 2004). 28 Joas, Braucht der Mensch Religion?, pp. 78-95. 146 Vasilios N. Makrides not only politically, but also intellectually and culturally. There was broad social-scientific research in the Soviet Union that included the religious sphere, and yet this was connected with the cardinal ideological orientations and objectives of the atheistic regime (‘scientific atheism’). The main purpose was to discredit religion or to explain why religion could survive despite systematic persecution and discrimination.29 In non-communist Orthodox Europe, the academic institutionalization of social science took place more or less in the secular settings of universities or research centers, which were distinct and independent from religion, and, in our case, from the Orthodox tradition. It is therefore no surprise that the interaction between secular academia, on the one hand, and the Orthodox Church and actors on the other has not been particularly productive for a long time. Significant con- tributions were made, though, by scholars with an Eastern Orthodox background in teaching and research within secular Western academia, such as Demosthenes Savramis in Germany, Nikos Kokosalakis in England, Kyriacos C. Markides in the USA (all in the field of the sociology of religion) or John G. Peristiany in England (in the field of social anthropology). Yet, the results of their research were not considered by the Orthodox Churches and did not become the object of systematic theological reflection. The same holds true for the social scientific research on various aspects of Eastern Orthodoxy by Western secular scholars of varied provenance.30 A real revolution in interest, both internal and external, in Eastern Ortho- dox Christianity took place after the radical changes in the former Eastern Bloc countries (1989–1991), which led to the strong reappearance of religion and specifically of Orthodoxy in the public sphere and to an influx of studies dealing with the broader political role of religions. There were also further developments connected with these changes, such as the consecutive wars in the former Yugoslavia (1991–1999), which led to its disintegration, the for- mulation of new geopolitical theories including the notorious theory of

29 James Thrower, Marxist-Leninist ‘Scientific Atheism’ and the Study of Religion and Atheism in the USSR (Berlin, 1983); Iva Doležalová, Luther H. Martin, Dalibor Papoušek, eds., The Academic Study of Religion during the Cold War: East and West (New York, 2001). 30 See, for example, Christel Lane, Christian Religion in the Soviet Union: A Sociological Study (Albany/NY, 1978); Gail Kligman, The Wedding of the Dead: Ritual, Poetics, and Popular Culture in Transylvania (Berkeley/CA, 1988); Sabrina P. Ramet, ed., Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century (Durham/NC, 1988). Orthodox Christianity and Social Science 147

Samuel P. Huntington about the New World Order after the collapse of communism or the enlargement of the European Union with predominantly Orthodox countries (Cyprus in 2004, Bulgaria and Romania in 2007). All this led to a lively and broad interest in Orthodox Christianity and its potential social influence; for example, whether it is intrinsically related to nation- alism and fanaticism, or whether it can be modernized by becoming compatible with the principles of liberal democracy, individuality, secularity, pluralism, human rights, tolerance, and multiculturalism. It is therefore no accident that the period of Archbishop Christodoulos in Greece (1998– 2008),31 as well as the religious developments in post-communist Russia,32 should have attracted broad and interdisciplinary interest during this period, not least from a social-scientific perspective.33 This research has been often systematized in the form of new associations (e.g., the International Study of Religion in Eastern and Central Europe Association/ISORECEA),34 or comparative statistical surveys across Europe (e.g., the European Social Survey).35 Interestingly enough, much of this research aimed at criticizing, deconstructing and revising widespread stereotypes and prejudices about Orthodox Christianity and its alleged essence and problematic social influence in contradistinction to Western Christianity.36 In fact, such negative

31 See, for example, Victor Roudometof, Vasilios N. Makrides, eds., Orthodox Christianity in 21st Century Greece: The Role of Religion in Culture, Ethnicity and Politics (Farnham, 2010); Daphne Halikiopoulou, Patterns of Secularization: Church, State and Nation in Greece and the Republic of Ireland (Farnham, 2011). 32 See, for example, Nikolai Mitrokhin, Русская православная церковь: Cовременное состояние и актуальные проблемы, 2nd ed. (Moscow, 2006); Katja Richters, The Post- Soviet Russian Orthodox Church: Politics, Culture and Greater Russia (London, 2013); Alexander Agadjanian, Turns of Faith, Search for Meaning: Orthodox Christianity and Post- Soviet Experience, Erfurter Studien zur Kulturgeschichte des Orthodoxen Christentums, 8 (Frankfurt am Main, 2014). 33 See also Victor Roudometof, Alexander Agadjanian, Jerry Pankhurst, eds., Eastern Orthodoxy in a Global Age: Tradition Faces the Twenty-First Century (Walnut Creek/CA, 2005); Lucian Leustean, ed., Eastern Christianity and the Cold War, 1945–91 (London, 2010), and Idem, ed., Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twenty-first Century (London, 2014); Victor Roudometof, Globalization and Orthodox Christianity: The Transformations of a Religious Tradition (New York and Oxford, 2014). 34 URL: http://www.isorecea.net/ 35 URL: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/ 36 Chris Hann, Hermann Goltz, eds., Eastern Christians in Anthropological Perspective (Berke- ley/CA, 2010). 148 Vasilios N. Makrides views about, and depictions of, Orthodox Christianity circulated in the context of various Orientalist or Balkanist discourses, in both overt and covert forms, leading to the ideologization of the differences between East and West.37 For our purpose, it is interesting to mention that such social-scientific research on Orthodox Christianity has been taken on board to some extent by the Orthodox Churches and theology, a development underlined by the specific challenges of the post-communist era. Among other things, it was a period when the public image of Orthodox Christianity as portrayed inter- nationally by the mass media suffered enough damage (e.g., in the wake of the Yugolsav wars or the specific politics of the Russian Orthodox Church). Social-scientific research criticizing the ideological and distorted presentation of Orthodox Christianity was therefore welcome to the Orthodox side, especially in corroborating its defense and arguments. Yet, such a development was underscored by the specific needs of this period, and was rather coinci- dental and circumstantial. It was not triggered by a broader and systematic Orthodox interest in coming into more serious contact with modern social- scientific research and, if possible and necessary, profiting from it. In other words, it was more about an accidental closeness between the two sides, while the Orthodox criteria in evaluating and selectively using the results from social-scientific research remained basically untouched. There are no doubt some interesting exceptions, especially in the theological appropriation of sociology and psychology, and the attempt to start a productive dialogue between Orthodoxy and social science in these areas, coupled with the expression of quite critical views about previously established Church practices. The work of the Orthodox priest, theologian and psychiatrist Vasileios Thermos,38 as well as that of the priest, theologian, philosopher and

37 Chris Hann, Eastern Christianity and Western Social Theory, Erfurter Vorträge zur Kultur geschichte des Orthodoxen Christentums, 10 (Erfurt, 2011); Peter McMylor, Maria Voro- zhishcheva, ‘Sociology and Eastern Orthodoxy’, in The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity, ed. Ken Parry (Malden/MA, 2010), pp. 462-479; Elizabeth H. Prodromou, ‘Shaking the Comfortable Conceits of Otherness: Political Science and the Study of “Orthodox Constructions of the West’’’, in Orthodox Constructions of the West, eds. George Demacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou (New York, 2013), pp. 193-210. 38 Vasileios Thermos, In Search of the Person: True and False Self According to Donald Win- nicott and St. Gregory Palamas (Montréal, 2002); Idem, Thirst for Love and Truth: Encounters of Orthodox Theology and Psychological Science (Montréal, 2010); Idem, ‘Towards a Orthodox Christianity and Social Science 149 psychologist Nikolaos Loudovikos,39 should be mentioned positively here. Nevertheless, the general mistrust of social science continues to exist, and the established tradition on this matter bequeathed by the past has not changed substantially. This attitude entails several complications and problems, which may be illustrated in the following concrete examples. The first example relates to an Orthodox theologian from the University of Thessaloniki, Georgios Mantzaridis, now Emeritus, who has taught Chris- tian sociology and social ethics there since the 1960s, and who has written extensively on various issues of Patristic and Orthodox theology, as well as on social issues from an Orthodox point of view. His was a sociology developed within an Orthodox theological frame and faculty.40 Mantzaridis acted as guest editor of an interesting special issue devoted to Orthodoxy, and especially Greek Orthodoxy, of the journal in the Sociology of Religion, Social Compass.41 He also wrote a successful book on the sociology of Chris- tianity in general.42 Despite its ambitious and broad title, this book basically dealt with the formation and development of Christianity, a social analysis of Christian dogmas, ethics and ritual, the social teaching of the Church, Christian charity and welfare activities, as well as religious life in Greece from an empirical perspective. Yet, the book had some shortcomings in terms of its methodological presuppositions, its selected themes, and the bibliography that it used. So, despite the useful material that it contained (e.g., from Patristic literature), it was not in fact a sociology of Christianity in the real sense of the word, but rather a mere consideration of social issues from an

Theological Understanding of Psychopathology and Therapy’, International Journal of Ortho- dox Theology, 2/3 (2011), pp. 101-119; Idem, ‘‘Love Your Neighbor as Yourself’: The Encounter of Western Psychotherapeutic Ideas with the Orthodox Church in Greece’, in Colonizing the Greek Mind? The Reception of Western Psychotherapeutics in Greece, ed. Charles Stewart (Athens, 2014), pp. 65-82. 39 Nikolaos Loudovikos, Ψυχανάλυση καὶ Ὀρθόδοξη θεολογία: Περὶ ἐπιθυμίας, καθολι κότητας καὶ ἐσχατολογίας (Athens, 2006). 40 Niki Papageorgiou, ‘Η ‘πρόσληψη’ της Κοινωνιολογίας από τη Θεολογία: Θεσμικές και πρακτικές όψεις’, Σύνθεσις: Ηλεκτρονικό Περιοδικό Τμήματος Θεολογίας Α.Π.Θ., 2 (2012), pp. 95-110. URL: http://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/synthesis/article/view/3168/3532 41 See the journal Social Compass, 22/1 (1975); for a Greek translation of this issue, see Georgios I. Mantzaridis, ed., Θέματα Κοινωνιολογίας τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας (Thessaloniki, 1975). 42 Georgios I. Mantzaridis, Κοινωνιολογία του Χριστιανισμού, 5th ed. (Thessaloniki, 1999) [German translation: Soziologie des Christentums (Berlin, 1981)]. 150 Vasilios N. Makrides

Orthodox point of view. This is why it attracted criticism from another sociologist of religion and Orthodox Christianity, Demosthenes Savramis, who initially studied Orthodox theology, but later worked and researched academically outside a theological frame.43 Mantzaridis no doubt produced some useful and interesting studies (e.g., on the monks of Mount Athos), but he cannot be considered a sociologist of religion stricto sensu, given that Orthodox theological presuppositions and objectives dominated his thought and research. The fact that he was not thinking purely sociologically can be discerned in other instances, too. In an article on the relationship between theology and the social sciences, he considered Orthodox theology to be a truly empirical science with its own articulated scientific method, methodology and procedure, which are basically parallel to those found among and used by social and natural scientists.44 Needless to say, such a view can hardly be shared by the latter, or when speaking generally about commonly accepted criteria within the modern secular academy, although there have also been some isolated Orthodox natural scientists who have supported this claim.45 The second example comes from a German economist and cultural sociologist, Alfred Müller-Armack, who produced an interesting sociological piece, initially published in 1945, which attempted a comparative analysis of Orthodox Christianity, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, and the social influence of each.46 Despite its limitations and inaccuracies, it was the first attempt to examine this issue more systematically. In doing so, Müller-Armack filled the gap left by Max Weber, whose interest in examining Orthodox Christianity more deeply never materialized due to his untimely death. Much later, Müller-Armack’s ideas attracted criticism from

43 Demosthenes Savramis, ‘Review of Georg J. Mantzaridis, Soziologie des Christentums, Ber- lin: Duncker und Humblot, 1981’, Ökumenische Rundschau, 31 (1982), pp. 393-394. 44 Georg I. Mantzaridis, ‘Theologie und Sozialwissenschaften: Orthodoxer Standpunkt’, in La théologie dans l’Église et dans le monde, Les Études Théologiques de Chambésy, 4 (Chambésy and Genève, 1984), pp. 251-263, and Georgios I. Mantzaridis, Ὀρθόδοξη θεολογία καὶ κοινωνικὴ ζωή, 2nd ed. (Thessaloniki, 1996), pp. 41-60. 45 Daniel Buxhoeveden, Gayle Woloschak, eds., Science and the Eastern Orthodox Church (Farnham, 2011). 46 Alfred Müller-Armack, ‘Zur Religionssoziologie des europäischen Ostens’, in Idem, Religion und Wirtschaft: Geistesgeschichtliche Hintergründe unserer europäischen Lebensform (Stuttgart, 1959), pp. 328-370. Orthodox Christianity and Social Science 151 a Greek Orthodox theologian, Alexandros Papaderos, who dealt specifically with the relations between the economy and Orthodox Christianity.47 Papaderos pointed out many deficits in Müller-Armack’s approach to Ortho- doxy, especially regarding its inability to produce a specifically “Orthodox economic ethic”. Yet, in his criticism, he focused more on details and missed the whole picture – namely, the main points of Müller-Armack’s argument, and his comparative analysis of Christianity in Europe in both East and West, which were valid and valuable. In other words, there are significant differences between Eastern and Western Christianity as far as their respective social influences are concerned. The point is how to examine them without falling victim to ideologizations or essentializations. From this perspective, Müller-Armack’s contribution is still important, despite its limitations and even if it may today be termed Orientalist or Balkanist. It is also characteristic that Savramis, whom I mentioned above, also wrote a review of Müller-Armack’s contribution. Despite his criticisms, he did acknowledge much more the merits of Müller-Armarck’s observations than Papaderos.48 The third example relates to the official and unofficial tendencies to approach and appropriate social science among individual Orthodox clergy- men and laymen. One such tendency, evident in both pre- and post- communist times, has features that are clearly apologetic and anti-Western. The opposition between the Orthodox East and the Latin West always exists in the background of such endeavours and serves as a way of demonstrating Eastern Orthodox authenticity and superiority. In the present context, attempts are made to avoid the ‘pitfalls’ of Western social science and societal evolution, and to develop a social science based exclusively upon Eastern Orthodox culture and premises. In other words, it is about a process of ‘Easternization’ and ‘Orthodoxization’ of Western social science. This, in turn, is closely connected to a critique of Western social science, which is seen as the product of a specific misguided and fallen society and culture. In this vein, the Greek-Orthodox Metropolitan of Nafpaktos, Hierotheos Vlachos, a very prolific author and theologian, took up Max Weber’s

47 Alexander Papaderos, ‘Orthodoxy and Economy: A Dialogue with Alfred Müller-Armack’, Social Compass, 22 (1975), pp. 33-66. 48 Demosthenes Savramis, ‘Review of Alfred Müller-Armack, Zur Religionssoziologie des europäischen Ostens’, Ostkirchliche Studien, 9 (1960), pp. 51-56. 152 Vasilios N. Makrides well-known theory about the intricate relationship between ascetic Protes- tantism and the rise of rational capitalism in the West, and considered this development to be a negative consequence of the alienation of the heretical West from the genuine Patristic tradition of the Orthodox East. The whole argument was based on excessive value judgements which sought to prove that the authenticity of the Orthodox East is far superior to the Roman-Cath- olic and Protestant West, and that Orthodox Christianity could never produce such an unjust, immoral and problematical capitalistic spirit! According to Vlachos, a true social science of Orthodox Christianity must be developed in order to point clearly to the fundamental differences in the social impact that the two parts of European Christendom have, and thereby to reiterate the quality, value and superiority of Eastern Orthodoxy.49 Needless to say, Weber’s initial theory, despite being influenced by a dominant Protestant meta-narrative at the time,50 had no such intentions, and was formulated in rather pure social-scientific terms. Interestingly enough, Vlachos also criticized the attempts to initiate a dialogue and a productive interaction between Orthodox Christianity and modern psychology/psychoanalysis for betraying the Orthodox tradition and capitulating to the Western spirit of secular modernity. In his view, Orthodoxy has its own long tradition of psychotherapy, based on its ascetic, mystical and Patristic sources, which is far superior to the psychotherapy of the modern Western world.51 A fourth and final example can be taken from some recent attempts in the post-communist period to make Orthodox Christianity compatible with modern democracy, liberalism, pluralism, tolerance, and the ideals of an open society. As already mentioned, this issue has become quite important since the collapse of communism and the need on the part of ex-communist countries to make the transition to a democratic and liberal political system and market economy. Such a transition from totalitarianism to democracy was thought of as being hindered by several factors, including the alleged influence of Orthodox Christianity, which was the main religious tradition in many such countries. In turn, this led some Orthodox thinkers to try to

49 Hierotheos Vlachos, ‘Ὁ Καπιταλισμός ὡς γέννημα τῆς Δυτικῆς μεταφυσικῆς, κατά τόν Max Weber’, Γρηγόριος ὁ Παλαμᾶς, 78 (1995), pp. 307-343. 50 Anthony Carroll, Protestant Modernity: Weber, Secularization and Protestantism (Scranton and London, 2007). 51 Hierotheos Vlachos, Existential Psychology and Orthodox Psychotherapy (Levadia, 1995). Orthodox Christianity and Social Science 153 refute such evaluations of Orthodox Christianity. One way to do so was by drawing on specific Orthodox theological teachings and traditions, such as the principle of divine-human communion, the Eucharistic experience, the personalist understanding of the Holy Trinity and the concomitant opposition between person and individual, and the ascetic Hesychast tradition. It is therefore claimed that such theological presuppositions can be compatible with the exigencies of the modern world and provide a sound basis for placing Orthodox Christianity within the related modern discourse; for example, a combination of Orthodox personalism and democracy, liberalism and human rights. Such views have been formulated not only by Orthodox theologians,52 but also by some social scientists with an Orthodox background, and aimed at rehabilitating the profile and social image of Orthodox Christianity.53 In other words, there is here an interesting combination of Orthodox theology and modern social-science perspectives. The main problem with such attempts, however, is their empirical verifiability, i.e., whether their arguments can be substantiated by historical and other data. This is because drawing various socio-political influences directly from specific Orthodox doctrines, orientations and principles can be problematical and uncertain in many respects. First, it is not at all sure whether such principles represent Orthodox Christian theology across history, as they mostly stem from relatively recent interpretations and theories by some Orthodox theologians. Thus, they cannot be simply projected onto the long Orthodox past as representing diachronic Orthodox principles. Second, there are other Orthodox theologians who have diametrically opposed ideas and see a fundamental incompatibility between Orthodox principles and modern secular ideals (e.g., Orthodox personalism as opposed to the modern concept of human rights). The question, then, is who is right in the evaluation of Orthodox theology and whether there is a safer and sounder basis to proceed

52 Nikolas K. Gvosdev, Emperors and Elections: Reconciling the Orthodox Tradition with Modern Politics (Huntington/NY, 2000); Aristotle Papanikolaou, The Mystical as Political: Democracy and Non-Radical Orthodoxy (Notre Dame/IN, 2012). 53 Elizabeth H. Prodromou, ‘Christianity and Democracy: The Ambivalent Orthodox’, Jour- nal of Democracy, 15 (2004), pp. 62-75, and Eadem, ‘International Religious Freedom and the Challenge of Proselytism’, in Thinking through Faith: New Perspectives from Orthodox Christian Scholars, eds. Aristotle Papanikolaou and Elizabeth H. Prodromou (Crestwood/NY, 2008), pp. 247-277. 154 Vasilios N. Makrides to such inferences about its alleged social influence. No doubt, the same procedure has been attempted with Western Christianity and especially with Protestantism in the well-known research paradigm of Max Weber, which is still in many respects valid today.54 Yet, this paradigm has much more empirical substance, given that Protestantism was closely intertwined with the rise of West European modernity. This makes the related arguments much more verifiable and plausible in the case of Protestantism. In contrast, related arguments about the “positive effects” of Orthodox doctrines in the case of Orthodox Christianity seem mostly to be a product of wishful thinking, and cannot be supported by concrete historical and empirical evidence. Interest- ingly enough, we may find more empirical evidence that certain Orthodox cardinal features may have obstructed social and cultural development in predominantly Orthodox settings, in Byzantine and later periods alike.55

Exploring New and Productive Possibilities

By way of conclusion, and having outlined some aspects of the particular relationship between Orthodox Christianity and social science, I now wish to discuss a few basic points related to the need for Orthodox Christianity to move beyond its traditional historical coordinates and begin a more fruitful and constructive dialogue with the modern world – and, in our case, with the broad field of social science. This should not be an aim of the distant future, given that there are plenty of signs that Orthodox theological thought has already developed during the last few decades in its attempt to address new challenges and novel situations.56

54 Gert Albert, M. Rainer Lepsius, Wolfgang Schluchter, eds., Das Weber-Paradigma: Stu- dien zur Weiterentwicklung von Max Webers Forschungsprogramm (Tübingen, 2003). 55 See Vasilios N. Makrides, ‘Religion et société dans l’orthodoxie grecque: Quelques conséquences socioculturelles du concept d’orthodoxie’, Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études: Section des sciences religieuses, 110 (2001-2002), pp. 371-375. 56 See Mary B. Cunningham, Elizabeth Theokritoff, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology (Cambridge, 2008); Trine Stauning Willert, New Voices in Greek Orthodox Thought: Untying the Bond between Nation and Religion (Farnham, 2014); Pantelis Kalaitzidis, ‘New Trends in Greek Orthodox Theology: Challenges in the Movement Towards a Genuine Renewal and Christian Unity’, Scottish Journal of Theology, 67 (2014), pp. 127-164. Orthodox Christianity and Social Science 155

This presupposes, first, a more positive attitude to the entire project of (Western) modernity as such, which for various historical reasons has still not taken place within the Orthodox Christian world.57 Despite some com- mendable, yet individual, attempts over the last few years,58 the Orthodox side still has a long way to go, given that most Orthodox evaluations of modernity are still negative. Social science, at least as it is articulated and institutionalized nowadays, is a specific facet of modernity and is inextricably linked to it. Thus, any meaningful interaction with it necessarily involves broader issues as well, which are deeply related to the overall frame of modernity. It is precisely with this point that we can witness a major difference between Orthodox and Western Christianity. Despite great problems and losses, especially for the Roman Catholic Church, Western Christianity was able to proceed gradually to a new relationship with modernity and articulate its modern profile accordingly. In this context, both Catholic and Protestant actors showed a great openness towards the advances of modern social science, which each tried to use for its own purposes. For example, Western theological thought has had a long and fruitful dialogue with social science, and has gained much from this encounter.59 In this sense, it has tried to become contextual, a term that was, after all, first coined within Western theological discourse. Western Churches also proceeded to develop their own social agendas and doctrines, which took selective account of, among other things, the results of social science. These are developments that took place on a large scale in the West and that are mostly absent from the Orthodox

57 Vasilios N. Makrides, ‘Orthodoxes Christentum und Moderne – Inkompatibilität oder langfristige Anpassung?’, Una Sancta, 66 (2011), pp. 15-30, and Idem, ‘Orthodox Christian- ity, Change, Innovation: Contradictions in Terms?’, in Innovation in the Orthodox Christian Tradition? The Question of Change in Greek Orthodox Thought and Practice, eds. Trine Staun- ing Willert and Lina Molokotos-Liederman (Farnham, 2012), pp. 19-50. 58 Pantelis Kalaitzidis, Ὀρθοδοξία καὶ νεωτερικότητα. Προλεγόμενα (Athens, 2007); Idem, Nikos Ntontos, eds., Ὀρθοδοξία καὶ νεωτερικότητα (Athens, 2007); Assaad E. Kattan, Fadi A. Georgi, eds., Thinking Modernity: Towards a Reconfiguration of the Relationship between Orthodox Theology and Modern Culture (Tripoli/Lebanon and Münster, 2010). 59 See, for example, Richard H. Roberts, Religion, Theology and the Human Sciences (Cam- bridge, 2002); Gerhard Wegner, ed., Gott oder die Gesellschaft? Das Spannungsfeld von Theo- logie und Soziologie (Würzburg, 2012); Ansgar Kreutzer, Franz Gruber, eds., Im Dialog: Systematische Theologie und Religionsosziologie (Freiburg im Breisgau, 2013); Eloise Meneses, Lindy Backues, David Bronkema et al., ‘Engaging the Religiously Committed Other: Anthro- pologists and Theologians in Dialogue’, Current Anthropology, 55 (2014), pp. 82-104. 156 Vasilios N. Makrides

East, aside from a few, mostly individual, exceptions. Western Churches were no doubt able to make this transition because they (especially Protes- tantism) have their own strong tradition of world-relatedness, and therefore always showed a greater interest in the social world as such. Due to its stronger attitudes to other and outer worlds, Orthodox Christianity has historically shown less interest in social reality, while its own attitude to the world has been less affirmative and favourable. It is therefore no accident that Orthodox Christianity lacks systematic social teaching – in clear contrast to the Western Churches. Nevertheless, this does not preclude a priori its potentially stronger social engagement and development in the future, given that modernity is closely related to a deep ontological affirmation of the world. No doubt, we are talking here about long-term processes in various forms and domains, which may eventually change the overall profile of Orthodox Christianity. In fact, the Orthodox side does not have to copy Protestant or Roman Catholic strategies in dealing with modernity, strategies that are related, but not identical. It has to study them dispassionately and draw from them potentially useful conclusions. In the end, the Orthodox side will articulate its own particular thinking and agendas on these matters, which will reflect its specific history and tradition – all these in the wake of necessary adaptations and modifications due to its encounter with modernity (see the current model of “multiple modernities”). Interestingly enough, some Orthodox actors have recently entered into a dialogue with the afore- mentioned Anglo-Catholic Radical Orthodoxy movement, which is critical of modern secular intellectual development in the West and the social science connected to it.60 No matter how interesting this dialogue might be, the Orthodox should not forget that Radical Orthodoxy is, first, a rather marginal theological movement in the West and does not represent the current Western theological mainstream. In addition, such a dialogue, under the present circumstances, is not the most appropriate way for Orthodox Chris- tianity to encounter modernity in a more constructive manner. After all, Radical Orthodoxy presupposes the very long encounter of Western Chris- tianity with secular modernity and is a late outcome of and reaction to it, whereas the Orthodox side has barely started its own profound interaction

60 Adrian Pabst, Christoph Schneider, eds., Encounter between Eastern Orthodoxy and Radical Orthodoxy: Transfiguring the World through the Word (Farnham, 2009). Orthodox Christianity and Social Science 157 with modernity. Hence, both have a quite different theological and cultural background, despite some outward similarities and parallels. Second, an openness towards modern social science also means a critical evaluation of the past and avoiding romantic regressions to an idyllic and paradisiacal earlier stage in history. This has to do with the notorious fixation on the past of the Orthodox side, which is connected to its traditionalism and lack of historicity, and which leads it to idealize its previous history (e.g., the age of the Church Fathers) and to resist any innovations, even those that are harmless.61 In this frame, the past acquires a normative and binding func- tion in evaluating present developments, and also because it is considered qualitatively superior to the present. In other words, Orthodoxy likes to judge modern developments according to pre-modern criteria. This is a domain where the Christian East and West seriously deviate from one another, given that Western Christianity has long attempted its own historicization and was subjected to thorough scrutiny through modern hermeneutics.62 It has become clear that we cannot face modern problems and challenges by relying on the pre-modern authorities. Rather, Orthodoxy needs to consider seriously the changes brought about during the modern era, something that the Western Churches have certainly done in their attempt to increase the cred- ibility of their message. This did not mean completely abandoning previous Church and other authorities, but including them in a wider frame of reference that also always takes modern advances into account. This concerns, after all, the sensitive and crucial domain of human society and the world as a whole, to which modern social science has contributed much. Character- istically enough, all this is hardly noticeable in the respective Orthodox discourse, official and otherwise, which is still heavily dominated by pre-modern ideals and references. This is the case with the Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church of 2000, which overwhelmingly cites such pre-modern sources63 without any, even indirect, reference to ideas deriving

61 Makrides, ‘Orthodox Christianity, Change, Innovation’. 62 Volkhard Krech, ‘Die Historisierung heiliger Schriften’, in Europäische Religionsgeschichte: Ein mehrfacher Pluralismus, eds. Hans Gerhard Kippenberg, Jörg Rüpke and Kocku von Stuckrad, vol. 2 (Göttingen, 2009), pp. 613-641. 63 Alexander Agadjanian, ‘The Social Vision of Russian Orthodoxy: Balancing between Iden- tity and Relevance’, in Orthodox Christianity and Contemporary Europe, eds. J. Sutton and W. van den Bercken (Leuven, 2003), 163-182. 158 Vasilios N. Makrides from modern social science. In one case only there is explicit reference to the legislative, executive and judicial powers in the modern state according to John Locke’s well-known model of the “separation of powers” (Locke’s name, however, is not mentioned).64 In the other document about human dignity and human rights of 2008, the same Church drew its concept of freedom from biblical and Patristic sources (e.g., Gregory of Nyssa),65 thereby documenting its reliance on such pre-modern authorities and their assumed perpetual, diachronic significance for the Church. Given that there have been several theories of liberty by modern scholars (Berlin, Skinner, etc.) that are related to the modern discourse of human rights, it would have been more appropriate if such ideas had been taken into account more, even in a critical way. After all, it is about formulating Orthodox proposals on various issues today and not historically, which means that modern developments should also find a place, even if a limited one. It is also about understanding how the modern world is and functions, and not about castigating it as a deviance from the will of God and the right path. Orthodox Christianity should therefore attempt to adjust to the coordinates of the modern epoch without losing its prophetic message and critical voice. To this purpose, social science, if properly used, is vital and indispensable to modern Ortho- dox thinking in general. Third, these remarks also presuppose that Orthodox Christianity should substantially reconsider its traditionally negative evaluation of Western developments and overcome its tenacious anti-Westernism. Several members of the Orthodox faith have attempted to overcome this deadlock in recent years,66 but they are far from representing a mainstream within Orthodox Christian- ity, given that anti-Westernism has become stronger and more virulent in certain ex-communist countries recently. As already mentioned, modern social science stems originally from the Western intellectual tradition. Despite its globalized institutional formations today, its historical origins should not be overlooked. This is exactly the point that many Orthodox people still have problems with today, inasmuch as they are critical and

64 The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, Chapter III.9. 65 The Russian Orthodox Church’s Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights, Chapter II. 66 George Demacopoulos, Aristotle Papanikolaou, eds., Orthodox Constructions of the West (New York, 2013). Orthodox Christianity and Social Science 159 suspicious of, and even reject, the Western world as a whole, including its religious and non-religious features and achievements. Although understand- able to a large extent in its historical context, Orthodox anti-Westernism tends to be transformed today into a reactionary force that inhibits a more fruitful East-West contact and interaction. Of course, this does not mean denying the numerous differences between East and West which can be still traced today in many domains. These differences notwithstanding, this does not mean that all Western developments, including those in social science, are a priori wrong, ill-fated and endanger the Orthodox. A more substantial, yet critical, awareness of the Western world is therefore needed, and this world should not be considered moribund and in need of salvation by the superior side of the Orthodox. It is worth mentioning that the Western world has itself become quite self-critical and self-reflective in recent decades, thereby overcoming its previous inflexibility, one-sidedness and claims for absoluteness. The currents of postmodernity, postsecularity and postcolo- nialism, as well as the various concepts associated with them, attest to this fundamental change. Yet, it is ironic that many Orthodox thinkers use such self-critical voices within the current Western world for their own purposes by distorting them completely and placing them out of context.67 For example, if some Western scholars question the universal competence and applicability of secular reason, this does not mean that they will necessarily turn to the Orthodox world at some point for useful and badly needed alternatives! An Orthodox re-traditionalization and de-secularization of the West by means of Orthodox traditional principles and pre-modern remedies is not the appropriate way to deal with Western culture, since these are hardly persuasive and functional on the international and intercultural scene. Western self-reflectivity and plurality of perspectives do not signify a whole- sale denial of past Western achievements, but only their amelioration and adjustment to current needs and exigencies. This pertains, among other things, to social science, which has overcome its previous anti-religious and other (e.g., Eurocentric) underpinnings and presuppositions, and has

67 Vasilios N. Makrides, ‘‘‘The Barbarian West”: A Form of Orthodox Christian Anti- Western Critique’, in Eastern Orthodox Encounters of Identity and Otherness: Values, Self- Reflection, Dialogue, eds. Andrii Krawchuk and Thomas Bremer (New York, 2014), pp. 141-158. 160 Vasilios N. Makrides continued to develop in recent decades on a more neutral, open and flexible basis beyond its Western origins. This is again something that members of the Orthodox faith should take into consideration, for they still keep viewing things from the perspective of the normative East-West dichotomy and polarization. Anti-Westernism has lost much of its momentum nowadays, simply because the world is gradually becoming less and less Western and more and more global. Historical bifurcations between East and West have therefore largely dropped out of focus. Fourth, as already mentioned, the pastoral and practical aims of the Orthodox Church can be helped in many ways by modern social science, and this has already been the case historically with Western Churches. Although this is not prohibited or considered wrong, we should keep in mind that such a Church-oriented use of social science is not compatible with the main objectives of the latter, which are not supposed to be instru- mentalized by religious, political or other ideologies. This may be rather idealistic, but it still reflects the critical spirit and stance that social science should always adopt, and the fundamental independence of scientific research in general. With regard to sociology, Savramis has pointed out that the interest in social issues that Christian Churches and theology had on an international scale during the twentieth century was due to various reasons – for instance, the practical usefulness of this academic discipline, the amelioration of the social status of the Church, and the acquisition of a critical social attitude by the Church. Yet, these reasons have nothing to do with pure sociological objectives. Aside from the possibility of a fruitful interaction and mutual benefit between theology and sociology, Savramis deemed terms such as “Christian Sociology” to be mere impossibilities and contradictions. In his view, the social teaching of the Church only ends up formulating a Christian theory of society and ethics that, although potentially useful for a sociologist of religion, is far from being a sociology of Christianity. Sociology is basically a social science that may in fact have a de-mythologizing effect upon com- mon assumptions, which could also harm both Church and theology.68 Be that as it may, Savramis’ remarks reflect more or less an earlier period, when

68 Demosthenes Savramis, ‘Theologie und Soziologie’, in La théologie dans l’Église et dans le monde, Les Études Théologiques de Chambésy, 4 (Chambésy and Geneva, 1984), pp. 278-285. Orthodox Christianity and Social Science 161 his own research field – namely, the sociology of Orthodox Christianity – was largely undeveloped, and the gap between Orthodox theology and sociology was therefore quite large. The situation is different now, however, and there are various ways for social scientists and Orthodox thinkers to collabo- rate. But this can only happen if each side respects and comes to terms with the ‘otherness’ of the other side, and respectively avoids its biased and ideo- logically-oriented conflation. On the one hand, social scientists in general may well avoid theories with an all-encompassing universality, and remain within the range of their limited empirical data. On the other, Orthodox thinkers may show more openness towards pure social-scientific research on religious and other phenomena without denominational undertones and expediencies, while at the same time grasping more adequately historical change and the passing of time. This also holds true for the Orthodox Churches as institutions, which may profit in several ways from social- scientific research on religious phenomena; for example, on the development of an Orthodox social theology,69 or a “Christian Sociology” in the words of S. Bulgakov.70 There is no doubt that Orthodox Christian views about society and the world today are legitimate and absolutely necessary for the Church and its social presence and work,71 yet they do not necessarily reflect a pure social-scientific perspective on these matters. There will therefore always be differences between the two sides that will never be bridged, a fact that simply reflects the structural and functional differentiation of modern societies, with each sector developing according to its own logic and agenda. Thus, any attempt to ‘orthodoxize’ modern social science should be viewed as a futile and unsuccessful endeavor. Articulating a social theology definitely belongs to the domain of interest of Orthodox theology, and not to that of social science. In another context, such a wise and prudent openness of the Christian Churches to psychology has also been supported by a contemporary

69 Radu Preda, ‘Orthodox Social Theology as a Task for the Orthodox Engagement in Ecumenism’, in Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism: Resources for Theological Education, eds. Pantelis Kalaitzidis et al. (Volos, 2014), pp. 842-864. 70 Sergius Bulgakoff, Social Teaching in Modern Russian Orthodox Theology (Evanston/IL, 1934), pp. 8-12. 71 See, for example, Savvas Agourides, Θεολογία και κοινωνία σε διάλογο (Athens, 1999); Thanasis N. Papathanasiou, Κοινωνική δικαιοσύνη καί Ὀρθόδοξη θεολογία: Μία Προκήρυξη (Athens, 2001); Stavros S. Fotiou, The Church in the Modern World (Berkeley/CA, 2004); Radovan Bigovic, The Orthodox Church in the 21st Century (Belgrade, 2009). 162 Vasilios N. Makrides

Belgian scholar in the field of the psychology of religion, Vassilis Saroglou,72 who initially studied Orthodox theology in Athens and is therefore familiar with the related theological situation.

Concluding Remarks

Finally, modern social science may also contribute to a better understanding of the religious and cultural specificities and idiosyncracies of Orthodox Christianity as a historically distinct Christian tradition that differs from Western Latin Christianity. This can be better achieved through interdisciplinary research (e.g., with the help of cultural history), and yet social science may take the lion’s share in this attempt, given the heritage bequeathed by Max Weber and his research paradigm. Although the Weberian paradigm has already been applied to the Orthodox world (including by Savramis, and also with regard to Russia),73 yielding considerable comparative results, much still remains to be done. This should be attempted on a neutral, non-axio- logical basis without any attempt to prove Orthodox Christianity’s superiority or to castigate its social and other deficits vis-à-vis its Western counter- parts. To be more specific, such an investigation may shed light on several characteristics of Orthodox Christianity that demarcate it from Western Christianity – for example, the underdevelopment or even the absence of an Orthodox political theology, which, in contrast, extremely developed in the Western Christian tradition. Is this a purely accidental phenomenon, or does it have something to do with the particular socio-political coordinates of Orthodox Christianity across history?74 This is therefore a very interesting area of research, one that may contribute to a better understanding of Ortho- dox religious and cultural specificities, and yet always remain on an impartial and dispassionate basis. As already mentioned, however, the basic problem with such an approach has to do with the evidence that may be adduced to corroborate the related arguments. In other words, how is it possible to discern an intrinsic connection between Orthodox doctrines and concrete

72 Vassilis Saroglou, ‘Église(s) et psychologie(s): Bilan et perspectives d’une ouverture pru- dente’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 95 (2000), pp. 709-753. See also Idem, Religion, Person- ality, and Social Behavior (New York, 2014). 73 Andreas Buss, The Russian-Orthodox Tradition and Modernity (Leiden, 2003). 74 Pantelis Kalaitzidis, Orthodoxy and Political Theology (Geneva, 2012). Orthodox Christianity and Social Science 163 social, political and cultural developments? In the case of Protestantism, the connection appears to be more tangible, visible and persuasive, simply because Protestantism was closely related to the changes brought about by modernity. When Weber talked about an “elective affinity” (Wahlverwand- schaft) between ascetic Protestantism and the rational capitalist mentality, he could provide enough empirical evidence for his claims and theory. None- theless, Weber’s thesis generated numerous debates and was strongly chal- lenged by many scholars. It is therefore quite important when arguing for the potential and cultural specificities of Orthodoxy to look also for a sound empirical basis to corroborate such arguments, which is not an easy task at all. For example, to argue that the Orthodox spirit is very environmen- tally friendly because of the ideas and activities of the ‘Green Patriarch’ Bartholomew I of Constantinople75 appears rather unconvincing. This is because such an alleged spirit has left no visible imprint on environmental policies in predominantly Orthodox countries, which are far from satisfac- tory! There is therefore a need to historicize the Orthodox past and present, and to embed Orthodox Christianity within specific socio-historical settings and parameters. It is more useful to examine what, when, how and why in Orthodox Christianity from an empirical, socio-cultural perspective rather than to make all-encompassing, diffuse and even bombastic rhetorical state- ments about the potential influence of Orthodox Christianity on society and culture. Needless to say, social science in collaboration with other disciplines (e.g., modern cultural studies) may help to locate the real and not imaginary or alleged socio-cultural influence of Orthodox Christianity. Yet, to look for Orthodox cultural specificities does not mean that Orthodox Christianity is an “exceptional case”, one that needs a special social-scientific method to be examined properly.76 We should simply be aware of the fact that Orthodox Christianity, like any other religious system, has its own particular features that should be kept in mind, and that, despite parallels and commonalities, should not be confused with those of Western

75 His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartolomew, Encountering the Mystery: Understand- ing Orthodox Christianity Today (New York, 2008), pp. 89-119. 76 On this debate, see Miklós Tomka, ‘Is Conventional Sociology of Religion Able to Deal with Differences between Eastern and Western European Developments?’, Social Compass, 53 (2006), pp. 251-265; Sergej Flere, ‘Questioning the Need for a Special Methodology for the Study of Eastern Orthodoxy’, Social Compass, 55 (2008), pp. 84-100. 164 Vasilios N. Makrides

Christianity or other religions; for example, concerning the issue of Church- state relations or the attitude towards the world and the secular.77

Abstract

What are the relations between Orthodox theology and social science? Can Orthodox theology profit from it? The question may seem easy to answer at first. The Church has always dealt, in one way or another, with social issues. On the other hand, one may note several differences between the Orthodox East and the Latin West in dealing with social issues, especially in modem times. The paper addresses this broad issue by taking into consideration the specific Orthodox case. It explores the ways in which Orthodox theology may start a fruitful dialogue with modern social science and also discusses some caveats that the Orthodox should bear in mind.

77 Vasilios N. Makrides, ‘Orthodox Eastern and South Eastern Europe: Exception or Special Case?’, in The Plurality of Europe: Identities and Spaces, eds. Winfried Eberhard and Christian Lübke (Leipzig, 2010), pp. 189-203.