Dialogue between the East and the West: Danger or Chance?From “Pseudomorphosis” to an “Exchange of Gifts”Dr. Johannes Oeldemann, PaderbornIf we think about the relevance of the Apostle Andrew for the Christian Oecumene at this conference, many of us will probably think of the icon showing the Apostles Peter and Andrew in a brotherly embrace. This icon was painted more than 40 years ago on the request of Patriarch Athenagoras in commemoration of that historic encounter between himself and Pope Paul VI in Jerusalem by which a new era was introduced as to the relationship between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. The gesture of the two Apostles symbolically stands for the willingness to forgiveness, dialogue and reconciliation between the churches of the East and the West. The fact that we have met here in Freising in order to think about the relevance of the Apostle Andrew is a vivid witness for our readiness to engage in dialogue. However, there are also some people in our churches who observe such dialogues and all ecumenical contacts in general with great distrust. In their view, dialogue is not something good offering us the chance of mutual enrichment but, on the contrary, something bad that may become a danger to the identity of one’s own faith. If we want to progress in ecumenism, that is to say towards the unity of the church, then we cannot ignore these doubts but we will have to deal with them. I will do so in the following by condensely looking at the history of the relationships between the East and the West. The reciprocal influences of theology in the East and the West which have existed without any doubt, sometimes have been felt as danger and sometimes as chance in the course of history. The fact that Orthodox theologians often look at Western influences on Orthodox theology to be a danger to their own identity whereas Western theologians frequently speak of an enrichment of their own view by Eastern theology, will give us cause for thought. In the following, therefore, I will try to face our today’s judgements with the historic development and to draw conclusions from this for the future of the theological dialogue between the East and the West.^ 1. The thesis of the “Pseudomorphosis” of Orthodox theology If we look at theological-historical discourses dealing with the relationship between the churches of the East and the West, they often show a one-dimensional view of history. After the Golden Age of the Greek patristics and its intellectual exploration and systematization in the Byzantine Empire, in their view follows a period of decline of Eastern theology getting more and more under Western – Catholic as well as Protestant – influence and Orthodox theology has not reflected on its own heritage again before the 20th century. Catholic and Protestant influences are seen to be a danger to authentically keeping the Orthodox faith. This thesis was expressed especially concisely by Father Georges Florovsky. It was to the First Congress of Orthodox Theology at Athens in 1936 that he presented his thesis that “Russian theology had been entirely disfigured by Western influences”1, insofar as the adoption of Protestant ideas and scholastic thoughts would mean “a split between theological ‘learning’ and the experience of the Church”2. The result of this process would be a “forcible pseudomorphosis”3 of Orthodox theology being forced to “think in essentially alien categories and to express themselves in foreign concepts”4. The thesis of the “pseudomorphosis” – a term which Florovsky had taken from the famous writing of the historian and philosopher Oswald Spengler “Decline of the West”5 – was continued by many Orthodox theologians in the following period and, above all, in Greek theology it was partly increased. As a sole remedy for Western influences, the radical supporters of the concept of “pseudomorphosis” – to whom Florovsky himself does not belong – propagate a return to the sources of Patristic theology: Only in the writings of the Church Fathers, the authentic faith of Orthodoxy is shown. Thus, the concept of the “neopatristic synthesis” has turned to an ideal of Orthodox theology in the second half of the 20th century. What conclusions can be drawn from this rough sketch of the thesis of the “pseudomorphosis” of Orthodox theology? What has been said until now seems to lead to the harsh formulation that all good things come from the East and all bad ones from the West. If one looks at the matter in a more differentiated way, the position of the Orthodox “Neopatristic” theologians should be described in the way that all good has its roots in the early church whereas all worse had been added due to the late-medieval and the early modern development. Anyway, in my opinion such an example of argumentation which can be noticed in the writings of many Orthodox, but also of some Western theologians is based on a simplification of history. Because such a view of things considers a particular period of church history and a particular stage of development of theology as an unparalleled ideal towards which we would have to orient ourselves for all time. This view is insofar problematic as it takes for granted that church and theology have only developed until a particular historic moment in a creative examination of their historical context and setting. The idealization of that time then consistently leads to the conviction that a further development and deepening of Christian understanding of faith seems to be almost impossible in the course of history. In contrast to this, I would like to hold the thesis that the reciprocal influences of theology in the East and the West did not lead to an alienation from a former ideal – probably being fictitious to a great extent – but to a deepened understanding of faith. In a second part of my lecture I will substantiate this thesis with several historic facts before giving attention to the ecumenical potential of the reciprocal influences of Eastern and Western concepts of theology in a final third part.^ 2. Reciprocal influences in the history of theology Already in the early church, theological thought developed into different directions. As an example, I would like to indicate at the harsh discussions between the Antiochene and the Alexandrine school of theology which occasionally provoked reciprocal condemnations, but finally led the church to a deepened understanding of the mystery of Christ. There were also disagreements between the churches of the East and the West again and again as they, for example, had already come up in the 2nd century on the occasion of the quarrel about the date of Easter. Nevertheless, the reciprocal exploration of theological thought between the East and the West was taken for granted at that time. We find a vivid example of this in the person of Saint Irenaeus of Lyon († 200) who came from Asia Minor but served as a bishop in the West. He contributed his Eastern way of thinking to the Western church and became a pioneer of the entire church against the gnostic trends of his time.6 His biography and his theology are an outstanding example for the fruitful symbiosis of the East and the West. For this reason, an International Orthodox-Catholic Working Group which was founded in June 2004 in Paderborn in order to discuss the problems that are still unsolved in the dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics, has chosen Saint Irenaeus to be its patron saint.7 At the same time it is important to recall that already in the early church there was not only a reception of the Eastern theology by the Western church but as well a reception of Western theological thought by the Eastern churches. As an example, Cyprian of Carthage († 258) could be mentioned whose dispute with the Donatists led to a deepened reflection on the understanding of the church8 and the results of which had also been adopted by Eastern theology. Reciprocal influences of theology in the East and the West can be proved as well on the threshold between the early church and the Middle Ages. A particularly impressive example on the Western part is Pope Gregory I († 604), later on called “the Great”, being the first monk on the papal throne whose writings had also been widely spread in the Eastern churches.9 The fact that Gregory, before ascending the papal throne, had spent six years as apocrisiary of his predecessor at the Byzantine imperial palace, has probably influenced his literature and its reception in the East. On the Eastern part, John Damascene (born around 650) is one of the Church Fathers of the early medieval period whose writings had not only been adopted by the whole Orthodox world, but from the 12th century onwards also by the West.10 Today, he is accepted as a great compiler of the Greek patristic tradition in the East and the West. Only in the 9th century, the alienation between Orient and Occident had proceeded so far that the polemic separation superseded the fruitful exchange. In the first half of the second millennium, a lack of knowledge of languages as well as the consequences of the events of 1054 and 1204 nearly brought the dialogue between the East and the West to a standstill. Against this background, it seems to be like an irony of history that only with the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the revival of an exchange of theology between the East and the West was made possible. At first, this was simply due to the fact that Greek theologians in the Ottoman Empire had no admission to higher education so that they moved to famous educational establishments in the Occident. The universities of Rome and Padua, Oxford and Halle recorded a remarkable increase in Greek students at this time. Venice and Vienna gradually developed into cultural centres of Hellenism. Thus, it is no coincidence that the “Philocalia” was published as a book for the first time 1782 in Venice. And also the theory that the renaissance was influenced by the immigration of numerous Greek scholars to Italy seems to be well-founded. In this way, Eastern Christianity had again a noticeable influence on the development of the Western church in the 15th century. Even when Western Christianity had been more or less captured by itself in the 16th century because of Reformation and Counter-Reformation, the contact with the Eastern Christians did not break off. The best known examples for this fact are Melanchthon’s Greek version of the Confessio Augustana11 elaborated due to his contacts with Orthodox theologians who studied in Germany as well as the correspondence between Protestant professors of theology at Tübingen and the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople.12 The consequence of the divisions within Western Christianity was that the Orthodox church felt itself to be forced to declare its position in the dispute between Rome and the Reformers. “It became usual at that time to use Protestant arguments against Rome and Roman arguments against Protestants, without checking either carefully in the light of Eastern tradition”13, Father Georges Florovsky states. As protagonists of this “pseudomorphosis” of Eastern theology, Florovsky names Cyril Loukaris (1570-1638) on the one hand, the Patriarch of Alexandria (from 1601) and later-on of Constantinople (from 1620) who had been influenced by Calvinistic ideas, and on the other hand Peter Mogila (1596-1647), the Metropolitan of the church of Kiev. In 1631, the latter established a theological college in Kiev in which the lectures were read in Latin. Later on this system of theological education was adopted by all spiritual schools in Russia so that the scholastic method of teaching was becoming a characteristic of wide parts of Russian theology. The critics of this development see the cause of the decline of the Orthodox teaching of theology during the 19th century in these Western influences. But does this adoption of Western structures of education and theological patterns of argumentation really and necessarily cause an alienation of Orthodox faith? Anyhow, the Latin schools within the Kievan church were primarily established by Orthodox brotherhoods – that means not by the supporters but by the opponents of a union with Rome who were very concerned to keep their own Orthodox identity. “Peter Mogila himself, in spite of his close dependence upon Roman sources in his theological and liturgical publications, was the head of the Orthodox Church in Poland, whose very purpose and aim was to defy the Uniate Church of that country”14, Georges Florovsky says. Finally, one should not forget when evaluating Western influences on Orthodox theology that Western theological thought also gave an immense impetus for the development of Orthodox theology. Thus, for example, Orthodox theology in Russia had absolutely had a sound grasp of contemporary theological thought at the transition from the 19th to the 20th century in view of the theological discussions at that time in the Western churches – not only in Protestantism and Catholicism, but also regarding Old Catholics and Anglicans.15 This “Golden Age” of Russian theology was forced to end by the October Revolution in 1917. Nevertheless, its heritage could be kept and developed by the Russian theologians in exile, above all in the theological schools of Saint-Serge in Paris and St. Vladimir’s near New York. The names of many important and influential Orthodox theologians are connected with these both institutions. In the 20th century, they almost had such a strong influence on Western theology as it had been exerted by the Occident on the Orient in the past centuries. So the East could give back to the West the fruits of that process of growth with which the “seeds” of Orthodox faith had ripened to the harvest through the “methods of cultivation” of Western theology. Thus, the ecumenical potential of the reciprocal influences of theology in the East and the West has already been indicated at to which I will now draw attention in the concluding third part.^ 3. The complementarity of traditions as ecumenical potential In former times, the mutual influence of Eastern and Western types of theological thought was a process dragging on for centuries so that periods of a stronger influence of the East on the West and times in which the West had a stronger influence on the East could be clearly divided from each other. In the 20th century, the process of reciprocal influence – as well as the whole social life – had increased in such a way that it hardly seems to be possible to distinguish between such periods. Moreover, in the 20th century there has been a continuous exchange between the different theological schools that could open the way to a rapprochement between the churches of the East and the West. From my point of view the ecumenical potential of this exchange has not been used sufficiently up to now. This ecumenical potential can be very well expounded on the example of the “School of Paris”: As already indicated, the Orthodox theologians in exile teaching at Saint-Serge had a big influence on the development of theological thought in the West. It is not without reason that Nikolaj Afanas’ev is one of the few contemporary theologians who are mentioned in the records of the Second Vatican Council.16 On the other hand, the Orthodox theologians of the school of Saint-Serge probably would not have reached such a high level of theological reflection if they had not been in a continuous exchange with Western theologians, above all with the representatives of the “nouvelle theologie” in France. The critical edition of the works of the Church Fathers in France as well as the research of ancient liturgical sources in Germany influenced on their part the upturn of Orthodox theology in the emigration. Joannis Zizioulas, one of the most famous theologians of the Greek-speaking world and apart from Alexander Schmemann probably that Orthodox theologian who had most intensively taken up and deepened the impulse of Afanas’ev for the development of an Eucharistic ecclesiology, therefore, emphasizes: “Thus, Orthodox theology has been able to overcome its own scholasticism by means of theological developments in the West.”17 After the breakdown of the Iron Curtain a repercussion of the “School of Paris” on the development of theology in Orthodox countries can be noticed in the last decade by which now the research of the patristic and liturgical sources in the Orthodox context is stimulated vice versa. Thus, the “School of Paris” is a good example for the fact that the reciprocal influences which have occurred in the course of the history of theology from the West to the East as well as from the East to the West do not necessarily lead to an alienation from the own tradition, as the thesis of the “pseudomorphosis” of Orthodox theology by Western influences supposes, but that this reciprocal process rather is an “exchange of gifts” opening the way towards a deepened reflection of the different traditions and, therefore, is able to enrich both sides. The Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council particularly emphasizes the “lawful variety” of the theological expression of doctrine and makes the point in this context that “from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting” (UR 17). This complementarity of traditions has to be made fruitful within the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.18 For a successful dialogue, therefore, it is indispensable that there are theologians who do not only know their own tradition but who are also familiar with the traditions of the interlocutors in order to avoid negative sweeping statements of the respective interlocutor on the one hand and unrealistic idealization of the own tradition on the other hand.19 Let me finally return to Georges Florovsky again. His warning of a “pseudomorphosis” of Orthodox theological thought by Western theology and his demand for a neopatristic synthesis were often misunderstood. If Florovsky calls upon to overcome Western influences on Orthodox theology, then this does not mean that he disapproves the method of Western theology in principle. Moreover, he states at the end of his famous lecture in Athens: “It is not sufficient merely to repeat Western answers, to play one Western answer off against another. But rather we must precisely recognize, experience, and penetrate these Western questions, we must familiarize ourselves with the entire dramatic problematic of Western religious thought.”20 Florovsky, therefore, does not intend to reject Western results of theological thought in principle, but he is concerned that Orthodox theology “must encounter the West creatively and spiritually”.21 In another passage he writes: “Recovery of a genuine ecumenical unity will be possible only through mutual rediscovery of East and West and a wider synthesis, such as has sometimes been attempted but never yet achieved.”22 Florovsky’s demand for a renewal of the Orthodox theology on the patristic basis, therefore, may not be treated as equivalent to a simple “Return to the Fathers”. Once again, let me quote Florovsky: “To return to the Fathers does not mean to retreat from the present or from history … It is not only a preservation and protection of patristic experience but also the very discovery of this experience and the bringing of this experience into life.”23 This demand of Florovsky, “the bringing into life”, is more relevant today than ever, due to the questions of the modern man, but on the basis of the tradition of the church. In my opinion, the question about the right definition of the relationship between tradition and modern age is the central challenge to be met by all Christian churches today. Orthodox and Catholics as well as Anglicans and Protestants are faced with the task to mutually stand for Christian values on which the European culture has been based and is based. The reciprocal influences of theology in the East and the West to which I have drawn attention in my lecture make clear that this European culture not only breathes the spirit of the West but also lives on the pulse of the Orthodox East. That is why the dialogue between the East and the West does not involve the danger of “pseudomorphosis” but, on the contrary, can lead to an “exchange of gifts” enriching both parts. If the Christian Oecumene becomes aware of this ecumenical potential of dialogue between the East and the West, then we are on the way to let come to life the spirit of dialogue and brotherly love that the icon of the Apostles Peter and Andrew clearly illustrates. 1 G. Florovsky, Western Influences in Russian Theology, in: Aspects of Church History, Volume Four in the Collected Works of G. Florovsky, Belmont 1975, pp. 157-182, here: p. 158. 2 Ibid., p. 167. 3 Ibid., p. 170. 4 Ibid. 5 Cf. O. Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, Umrisse einer Morphologie der Weltgeschichte, Munich 1963, pp. 784 ff. 6 Cf. N. Brox, Art. Irenaeus von Lyon. In: RAC 18 (1998) pp. 820-854. 7 Cf. Irénikon 77 (2004) 338-339; 78 (2005) 571; 70 (2006) 560-562. 8 Cf. P. Hinchliff, Cyprian of Carthage and the Unity of the Christian Church, London 1974. 9 Cf. R.A. Markus, Art. Gregor I. In: TRE 14 (1985) pp. 135-145. 10 Cf. B. Kotter, Art. Johannes von Damaskus. In: TRE 17 (1988) pp. 127-132; H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich, Munich 1959, pp. 476-486. 11 Cf. R. Slenczka, Melanchthon und die orthodoxe Kirche des Ostens. In: J. Haustein (Ed.), Philipp Melanchthon. Ein Wegbereiter für die Ökumene (= Bensheimer Hefte 82) Göttingen 1997, pp. 96-118. 12 Cf. D. Wendebourg, Reformation und Orthodoxie. Der ökumenische Briefwechsel zwischen der Leitung der Württembergischen Kirche und Patriarch Jeremias II. von Konstantinopel in den Jahren 1573-1581, Göttingen 1986. 13 G. Florovsky, The Orthodox Churches and the Ecumenical Movement Prior to 1910, in: Christianity and Culture, Volume Two in the Collected Works of G. Florowsky (1974) pp. 161-232, here: p. 181. 14 Ibid., 189. 15 Cf. K. Chr. Felmy, Die Auseinandersetzung mit der westlichen Theologie in den russischen theologischen Zeitschriften zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts. In: Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 94 (1983) pp. 66-82; J. Wasmuth, Der Protestantismus und die russische Theologie. Zur Rezeption und Kritik des Protestantismus in den Zeitschriften der Geistlichen Akademien an der Wende vom 19. zum 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen 2007. 16 Cf. Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Vaticani Secundi, Vol. 2, Pars 1, Vatican 1971, pp. 251 f. 17 J. Zizioulas, Die Eucharistie in der neuzeitlichen orthodoxen Theologie. In: Die Anrufung des Heiligen Geistes im Abendmahl. Viertes Theologisches Gespräch zwischen dem Ökumenischen Patriarchat und der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland, published by Kirchliches Außenamt der EKD (= Beiheft zur Ökumenischen Rundschau No. 31) Frankfurt a.M. 1977, pp. 163-179, here 172. 18 Cf. M.M. Garijo-Guembe, Die Komplementarität der Traditionen als methodisches Prinzip für den Dialog zwischen Orthodoxie und Katholizismus. In: R. Taft (Ed.), The Christian East. It´s institutions and it´s thought (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta 251) Rome 1996, pp. 613-630. 19 Cf. J. Oeldemann, Orthodoxe Kirchen im ökumenischen Dialog, Positionen, Probleme, Perspektiven (= Thema Ökumene, Vol. 3), Paderborn 2004, pp. 177 ff. 20 G. Florovsky, Western influences in Russian Theology (cf. note 1), p. 181. 21 Ibid. 22 G. Florovsky, The Orthodox Churches and the Ecumenical Movement (cf. note 12), p. 163. 23 G. Florovsky, Western influences in Russian Theology (cf. note 1), p. 181.