Perspectief 2015-29

2015-29 An Eastern Orthodox Reaction 39 Reag eer or to reach church unity through the legitimate church’s diversities, while, despite a positive approach to otherness articulated nowadays by leading Orthodox theologians, it seems that on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox it is painful to accept theological pluralism as well as to reconcile the uniqueness of the true faith with the acceptance of otherness, the particularity of Orthodoxy with the ecumenicity and the catholicity of the church. In a bold statement Fr. Georges Florovsky went so far as to maintain that the catholicity of Christendom requires inseparably both the Christian West and the Christian East. 10 He is not speaking yet of the catholicity of the church, but merely of the Christian civilization. Today, there is an increasing tendency within Eastern Orthodoxy of ignoring the other parts of Christianity, a tendency towards uniformity and homogeneity. Legitimate theological pluralism and unity in diversity are not only treated with suspicion when it comes to Christians of other traditions, but even within the Orthodox Christians themselves. An example would be that of the predominance in all Orthodox places, faculties or seminaries of the “Neo-patristic synthesis” over the Russian School theology, and the henceforth mandatory character for all Orthodox theologians of the famous “return to the Fathers”; or, to use another example, the insertion of models and practices of spirituality, or of elements of the liturgical rite (architecture, iconography, music), originated in the Greek or Russian “mother churches” in the Orthodox missions in Africa and Asia without any serious concern for enculturation. These could all be considered as indicative signs of this ecclesial and theological uniformity affecting today’s Orthodoxy and preventing a genuine ecumenical spirit among the Orthodox faithful. III Instead of a Conclusion But despite all these defensive attitudes, the Orthodox Church cannot deny its dialogic and charitable ethos, its long tradition of catholicity and ecumenicity. It has always been 10 G. Florovsky, “The Legacy and the Task of Orthodox Theology,” Anglican Theological Review , 31 (1949), pp. 65-71. Cf. idem, “Some Contributors to 20 th century Ecumenical thought”, Ecumenism II. A Historical Approach , vol. 14 in the Collected Works of G. Florovsky, Belmont, Massachusetts, 1989, pp. 209-210; idem “The Ways of Russian Theology,” Aspects of Church History , vol. 4 in the Collected Works of G. Florovsky, Buchervertriebsanstalt/Vaduz-Europa, 1987, pp. 201-204.