Jurisdictionalism (as Christians in North America and the Lands of Immigration have experienced), Orthodox 'denominationalism', spiritual nationalism and ethnic ghettos are all distortions and misrepresentations of Orthodox lived theology. If we cannot see ourselves and Christ in our Orthodox brothers and sisters, and if we continue to embrace either a sort of jurisdictional pride [thinking we're the only pure Orthodox] or practice in a way that is foreign to Orthodox ethos [becoming unrecognizable as Orthodox to other Orthodox], we make the hope of Orthodox unity increasingly difficult.
I once heard someone claim that 'Byzantine Orthodox' Theology is different than 'Oriental Orthodox' Theology. One may often hear that our formulations are different or that we use different terms, but I would hope that even if there is such diversity in the terms used or diversity in our cultural recension, what is meant, what is embraced and understood in essence should reflect the same 'theology' (which is mutually 'Orthodox') instead of the 'denominational' appeal for separate and antithetical 'byzantine' or 'oriental' theologies.
Strangely one may also hear that certain Orthodox jurisdictions have been 'corrupted' by neoplatonic thought. This appeal to 'distinctiveness' unfortunately encompasses a bit of broad stroking without asking if the jurisdictions in question have asked the question already. Sadly such broad stroking is a sort of theological prejudice that perpetuates rigorism and religious ghettos, instead of affirming diversity and dialogue among Orthodox.
One can see the same prejudicial movement when one also claims that an entire jurisdiction's understanding of Theosis has been influenced by hindu cosmology, or that Theosis is understood by certain jurisdictions as participation in the Divine Essence, or somehow involves loss of humanity into the Godhead, or dilution of God's essence. (All the while some of us also claim that the distinction between Energy and Essence is a 'new' term or innovation)
But let us return to the claim of neoplatonism in Orthodox thought, and that somehow some jurisdictions have remained pure and have never addressed, adopted or recapitulated certain themes of the philosophy of late antiquity along with the rest of the Christian world.
I once heard someone claim that 'Byzantine Orthodox' Theology is different than 'Oriental Orthodox' Theology. One may often hear that our formulations are different or that we use different terms, but I would hope that even if there is such diversity in the terms used or diversity in our cultural recension, what is meant, what is embraced and understood in essence should reflect the same 'theology' (which is mutually 'Orthodox') instead of the 'denominational' appeal for separate and antithetical 'byzantine' or 'oriental' theologies.
Strangely one may also hear that certain Orthodox jurisdictions have been 'corrupted' by neoplatonic thought. This appeal to 'distinctiveness' unfortunately encompasses a bit of broad stroking without asking if the jurisdictions in question have asked the question already. Sadly such broad stroking is a sort of theological prejudice that perpetuates rigorism and religious ghettos, instead of affirming diversity and dialogue among Orthodox.
One can see the same prejudicial movement when one also claims that an entire jurisdiction's understanding of Theosis has been influenced by hindu cosmology, or that Theosis is understood by certain jurisdictions as participation in the Divine Essence, or somehow involves loss of humanity into the Godhead, or dilution of God's essence. (All the while some of us also claim that the distinction between Energy and Essence is a 'new' term or innovation)
But let us return to the claim of neoplatonism in Orthodox thought, and that somehow some jurisdictions have remained pure and have never addressed, adopted or recapitulated certain themes of the philosophy of late antiquity along with the rest of the Christian world.
One can for example read the view of Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos:
"According to classical metaphysics, as expressed by Plato, man’s soul belongs to the unborn world of ideas and after its fall it was sealed in the body which is the soul’s prison. Because the soul has a memory of the world of ideas, it wants to return to it by the rejection of the body, and the whole mysticism of the Platonic and Neo-Platonic philosophers revolves around this point. The Fathers of the Church, however, do not accept this view of the soul. They claim that the soul does not belong to the world of ideas, that it is, instead, God’ creature which came to existence out of non-being, just like the entire world. In this perspective, then, the body is not the prison of the soul, and the soul has no need to return to the world of ideas, in a mystical way, through sorcery. It is well known that Neo-Platonism is closely associated with sorcery, as we see in the life of Plotinus. Thus, Orthodox theology refutes the mysticism of Platonism and Neo-Platonism."Metropolitan Hierotheos also mentions that Orthodox theology is "anti-metaphysical" in that it rejects the negative presuppositions and implications that might have been the world-view of pagan philosophical thought. The thing to point out is that we have a Byzantine Orthodox theologian who rejects the claim that Neo-Platonic thought has corrupted Orthodoxy.
+ Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2013/03/theology-and-science.html
If we look at Fr Andrew Louth's understanding we see a move beyond mention of 'influences' and instead a focus on the transformative dialogue and concilliar way Orthodoxy addresses philosophy or contrary beliefs.
Fr Andrew Louth on Christianity and Neoplatonism
Fr Andrew Louth: I suppose the central subject of my research over the last fourty years has very much been the way in which philosophical thought developed in late antiquity paralleled in the way which Christian thought developed in late antiquity. And the more I think about it, the more it seems to be that is the way to look at it, that in late antiquity both Christians and pagans were responding to the same kinds of developments in society and also listening to one another, sometimes disagreeing with one another. And it's not so much a question of an influence from neoplatonism to Christianity or even the reverse, it's much more a question of people belonging to the same world of thought, the same world of discourse, and within that same world of discourse responding in often a very similar way. One particular example for instance is the way in which as you move through the fourth century the idea that if we're going to understand anything at all there's a necessary step of faith, whether you're a pagan or a Christian, there is some step which cannot be reduced to simple rationality and that without taking that step we'll never actually progress in our understanding. Now that's something that I think some people say this is a Christian influence on neoplatonism. I wonder, it seems to be much more a response to common problems that they had. Of course that's the case nowadays, it seems to me that the links say between existentialism or phrenology or hermeneutic philosophy and Christianity are not so much a question of influence but rather a question of belonging to a common world discourse and hearing what other people say and finding these helpful ways of expressing what we [Christians] want to say ourselves."
To build on this understanding of dialogue, we read of another Orthodox Theologian who affirms that Christianity has historically been able to dialogue and transform all that it encounters:
"Christian theology rejected nothing good in the metaphysics, ethics, or method of ancient philosophy, but--with a kind of omnivorous glee--assimilated such elements as served its ends, and always improved them in the process."Or in the words of an ancient and prayerful man:
+ David Bently Hart
"...from each source let us both affirm virtue and critique evil. Just as honeybees enjoy certain flowers for their color or fragrance yet draw no nectar from such, so too let us strive to derive only what is profitable from all sources, and treasure such within our souls...So too let us approach diverse writings, harvesting the fruits that they offer for our objectives, while protecting ourselves from the damaging elements that may lie within them. In all our studies, let us take with us and take within us only what builds us up and what leads us in the fulfillment of our mission..."One could consider our fellow Orthodox as influenced by 'Neo-Platonic' or pagan thought, one could make broad-stroking claims that feed division and promote isolationist sentiments, or one could look at our Orthodox brothers and sisters from different jurisdictions and search for what is meant and how our mutual dialogue and unity can be a witness and revelation of what we all say and believe we are...Orthodox.
+ St Basil the Great
Again, if we cannot see ourselves and Christ in our Orthodox brothers and sisters, and if we continue to embrace either a sort of jurisdictional pride [thinking we're the only pure Orthodox rite] or practice in a way that is foreign to Orthodox ethos [becoming unrecognizable as Orthodox to other Orthodox], we make the hope of Orthodox unity increasingly difficult.
We have a lot to learn from and to offer to our Orthodox brothers and sisters. Each rite has beauty and truth that if we ignore or reject will only make us collectively impoverished. Fr Mat Alexander writes: "Our exposure to other Orthodox traditions is not a threat, it’s a blessing and helps us understand ourselves better."
Or in the words of one Orthodox priest from the Byzantine rite: "There are as many ways to be Orthodox as there are saints...Orthodoxy is as wide as God is, every saint is unique, and being able to understand God is a unique as the Saints."
Perhaps the same is with each Orthodox rite, for the saints being diverse are none the less all saints in the glory of God. At the risk of sounding reductionist and packaging an unpackagable Orthodox Church, perhaps we can dare to say that Orthodoxy raises saints.
Je Nai Nan. May the prayers of the Saints be with us. Glory to the Holy Trinity.
