One of the core characteristics of Eastern Orthodox theology and its liturgical experience is the catholic/holistic vision of the transformation and salvation of creation, and finally of the transformation of history, which has been assumed by the Incarnate Son and Word of God. In this perspective, following Jesus Christ who assumed the whole human person and the entirety of human nature, the church should seek to assume â and then to transform and save â the whole human being (body and soul, spirit and matter), as well as every aspect of his or her life (including the political, social, and economic aspects of this life, not just the spiritual or religious).
This is not, however, always the case when we come to terms with the theology and the praxis of the Orthodox Church, which, due to primarily historical reasons, did not succeed in providing an adequate public witness of its eucharistic and eschatological selfâconsciousness, of its experience of the active expectation of the kingdom of God, as well as of the implications of this expectation for the âpoliticalâ realm, viz. the Gospel commandments for social justice and solidarity with the poor, the marginalized, and the victims of history (Kalaitzidis 2012: 39â41, 65â77). One could even note that various prominent Orthodox theologians have underestimated or misunderstood the meaning and content of political or liberation theology, as is the case, among others, with the preâeminent theologian of the Russian diaspora Fr Alexander Schmemann (Schmemann 1987: 9â10; cf. Papathanasiou 2010); or of the very influential Greek theologian and philosopher Christos Yannaras (Yannaras 1983; 1984: 199â200, 216â17 n. 19; cf. Kalaitzidis 2012: 55â60). As a result, Eastern Orthodoxy, although very active and effective in charitable and philanthropic work, and despite its explicit affirmation and engagement in favor of peace, social justice, and the integrity of creation, as confirmed by the recently convoked Holy and Great PanâOrthodox Council of Crete (June 2016), has not, due to primarily historical conditions, yet articulated in a systematic way a âpolitical theology.â
This attitude is the obvious result of the loss of the understanding of the world as sacrament, and therefore of the sacramental character and spiritual dimension of the social action and the commitment of the faithful in history for the defense of the poor, the marginalized, the needy, the foreigner, or the persecuted. It reintroduces, thus, in the field of Christian theology, the distinction between sacred and profane, spiritual and material, supposed to be overcome already in early Christianity, but also in the liturgical life and praxis of the church. Orthodox spiritual tradition rejects this sacred/profane dualism, not only thanks to the theological vision of the âliturgy after the liturgyâ (Bria 1996; Anastasios (Yannoulatos) 2010: 94â96), but also because of the idea of the âtwo altarsâ: the one inside the building of the church, the eucharistic altar, which we venerate, decorate with silver and gold, and cherish as it hosts the Body of our Lord and Savior; and another one outside the building of the church, a second altar equal or even superior to the first, on which we can offer sacrifice at any moment, an altar which God himself has made, but toward which we do not show any reverence at all. This second altar, St John Chrysostom says, is the human person, the living icon of God, the living altar of Christ, and especially the poor, the needy, all those in persecution or in suffering, the homeless, and those in distress (John Chrysostom, PG 61, 540).
This chapter 1 will attempt to present the foundations of an Orthodox political theology. It will first develop the essential parameters and core theological presuppositions toward an Orthodox approach to the political, grounded mainly in trinitarian and incarnational theology, the eschatological understanding of the church and its eucharistic constitution. The second part of this chapter will offer an overview of the patristic sources, as well as of the major contributions of modern and contemporary Eastern Orthodox theologians and thinkers to the field of political theology. In the third part, an attempt will be made to present the growing interest in and emerging tendencies of political theology in todayâs Orthodox contexts and settings.
Foundations for an Orthodox Political Theology
What are those elements from the Orthodox tradition and theology that make possible in theory and praxis an engagement with politics from an Orthodox point of view? In what follows I will provide a brief sketch of the basic tenets that should unavoidably characterize any attempt at formulating an Orthodox political theology.
Trinitarian Theology and Chalcedonian Christology
âOur social program is the dogma of the Trinity.â This was the brief response given by the Russian religious philosopher Nikolai Fyodorov (c. 1828â1903) when he was asked what was the social program of the Orthodox Church. This famous phrase refers to the equalâinâhonor life and interpenetration of the divine persons in mutual love, a life of communion and sharing, as a model for human life and society. Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia noted that:
However, this alleged link of trinitarian theology to political praxis and social activism, so eloquently defended by Metropolitan Kallistos and appreciated even in the highest hierarchical rungs of Eastern Orthodoxy, that is Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew (Bartholomew 2008: 133), is not shared by all Orthodox theologians, as it remained, in most of cases, socially inactive, confirming thereby the statement that a theologically correct trinitarian view is probably a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the articulation of an Orthodox theological reflection on social and political issues, and the emergence of an Orthodox political theology and praxis praising a society based on love, solidarity, social justice, democracy, and freedom (Kalaitzidis 2012: 39â41).
A sound interpretation of the Christian trinitarian doctrine should lead to the rejection of every model of social inequality, and of any sort of political domination and authoritarian interpretation of politics, as well as to the denial of every kind of discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or on ethnic, cultural, and social origin. As is widely recognized, both the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation constitute the very core of Christianity, the two basic axes upon which every single Christian doctrine is founded (cf. Bulgakov 2003). It is well known, however, that almost all the traditional societies (in both East and West) were based on the sacralization of the mechanisms of authority and dominance, leading to an establishment of theistic/theocratic/hierarchical models. This understanding of the church and its theology in relation to society and secular reality led to a perception of religion in terms of power, while the church has been imposed on society from above, justifying more or less all of the social anachronisms, prohibitions, and discriminations. All this rolled back the hardâwon gains of trinitarian theology and the Incarnation, and negated the political relevance of the scandal of the cross (for what follows see also Kalaitzidis 2007: 79â82; 2012: 35â38).
The hermeneutics of the Incarnation, however, can open up a new path for the development of an Orthodox political theology. In fact, the person of Christ, as it has been understood by Chalcedon, assumed âwithout confusion,â âunchangeably,â âinseparably,â and âindivisibly,â the whole human person and nature followed by all the political, social, and other dimensions of this life, not just the spiritual or religious dimension. Church and politics, then, are not compartmentalized, with the first relegated to the soâcalled spiritual/religious sphere of human life and the second to the material or worldly, as it is often maintained. Rather the church aims at transforming and saving the whole human person (body and soul, spirit and matter), as well as every aspect of human life.
In this perspective, the widespread idea that the church should only concern itself with religious or spiritual issues, with the soâcalled sacred realm, leaving to others the area of the material and profane, represents a problematic and indeed âManicheanâ view. This perception does not, however, exclude the inherent fundamental difference between the church and politics. But t...
