Faithfulness to Roots.

        My specific topic is “Faithfulness to the Roots and Commitment Toward the Future.” The biblical concept of “faithfulness” is based on the word “faith,” one of the richest words in the biblical vocabulary. Faithfulness literally means a state of fullness of faith, a spiritual quality anchored on the faithfulness of God in His covenants and promises, a theme deeply ingrained in the consciousness of Jews and Christians. Alternate terms are fidelity, steadfastness, loyalty, reliance, unwavering commitment, and the like. All of these words and expressions resound with powerful echoes in the self-understanding and history of both the Jewish and Christian Orthodox peoples for whom tradition has been the force of survival over the millennia. Faith and faithfulness constitute the very ground of Jewish and Christian life from the human as well as the divine sides. For those who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and for those who believe in God as the Father of Jesus Christ, faith and life are co-equal realities.

        The more problematic concept is that of “roots.” This word is not particularly biblical and has a sociological rather than theological ring to it. Why not formulate the topic as follows: “Faithfulness to the Past and Commitment to the Future” in order to achieve a smoother historical and linguistic parallel? I assume that the reason has to do with the vagueness of the term “past” and the intent of this academic meeting to guide the discussion in part to “the roots,” that is, to the concrete and fundamental areas of faithfulness. Moreover, the term “roots” can also possess theological significance precisely because the faith and the concrete expressions of faithfulness of our respective religious communities are closely woven theologically and sociologically. By “sociologically” I mean the whole complex of the institutions, religious rites, customs, educational traditions, system of values, operative attitudes, and patterns of behavior which mark the multi-dimensional identity and consciousness of the Greek and Jewish people.

        We may ask, then, faithfulness to what roots? Here, although I would not presume to speak for the Jewish side, I would nevertheless suggest a basic outline of “roots” which may have relevance for both religious communities. The first and great subject and goal of faithfulness is the living God, the One who was, who is, and who comes (Ex. 3:14; Rev. 1:8). Despite the decisive difference of the Christian trinitarian understanding of God, both Jews and Christians are bound together by their faith in the one God, historically revealed according to the Scriptures as Creator, Lord, and Father, a God of glory and majesty, love and mercy, justice and peace, righteousness and judgment. His true servants, whether Jews or Christians, are called to walk humbly before Him and to live as thankful witnesses to His goodness and mercy before all peoples.

The second subject and goal of faithfulness is the religious community called into existence by God's self-disclosure, now painfully divided into variegated Jewish communities^[135] and a multitude of Christian traditions. The Scriptures teach us that the living God revealed Himself in order to establish His people as a light to the nations. God and people, Messiah and people, go together. Knowledge of God and of Christ are integrally connected with the life of the respective communities as the concrete contexts of worship, life, service and witness. One of the ten commandments is to honor our fathers and mothers who have struggled to preserve and communicate to us God and His ways. Whatever the historical vicissitudes, doctrinal differences, divergent concepts, and shortcomings of each community of faith, we must be faithful to our respective religious communities. Genuine dialogue at any level cannot occur without genuine faithfulness to the communities that have nourished us in the experience and knowledge of God.

        The third goal or area of faithfulness is comprised of God's gifts, covenants, great acts of deliverance, laws, faithful agents in salvation history, as well as promises. These constitute the heart of the self-understanding of our faith communities. Although we differ in the interpretation of the meaning, duration, and present validity of these gifts, nevertheless we are bound, for faithfulness' sake, to recognize them precisely as God's gifts and to regard them with requisite awe and thankfulness. Should we fail to honor God's gifts by viewing them superficially or even negatively in polemical critique of one another, we dishonor God Himself and diminish the dignity of our faith communities.

        The fourth and final major area of faithfulness is the whole integrated complex of institutions, practices, teachings, values, customs, offices, structures, and ways of conduct which seek to manifest the good order and spiritual vision of our communities in ongoing history. It would indeed be both arrogant and foolish to regard lightly, from an allegedly superior modernistic critical viewpoint, time-honored expressions of faith, however culture-bound they may seem, which in their totality enshrine not only the deep experiences, constitutive truths, and ultimate values, but also the very cohesiveness, strength, and vital spirit of our communities.

        You may by now object that I have placed all things under blessed faithfulness and you would be right. But if so, one would ask, how is it possible to conduct any meaningful dialogue at any level between sharply different traditional communities such as ours, though they may manifest a number of formal parallels? That is the crux of the problem in the Christian Orthodox-Jewish dialogue. We both possess, if I may use the key terminology of our consultation, deep faithfulness, canonical Scriptures, rich traditions, and long memories, all invested with an embracive sanctity that seems as inviolate as the principle of faithfulness itself. And yet, according to the fourth sub-theme of the consultation, we all live “in the contemporary world.” It is this element of our experience of the modern world and of multi-faceted modernity that inevitably thrust us toward dialogue, as in the case of all religions. Significant reasons validate the dialogue. Above all, a violent, unjust, exploitative, and perhaps dying world, both spiritually and ecologically, urgently needs the sacred treasures of our living traditions.        

        Dialogue, as well known, is a fairly recent and distinctively modern phenomenon. The histories of our religious communities, with rare exceptions (for example, Justin's Dialogue With Trypho in which the Christian and the Jew disagree but part as friends), have been marked since New Testament times by conflicts, polemics, disdain, persecution, and even killings, although there have also been periods of tolerated co-existence.^[136] The reality is that our religious communities, although sharing common spiritual roots, also have clashing beliefs and conflicting interests which readily impinge on daily life to the present, for example most notably in the Holy Land.^[137] Past conflicts, suspicions, enmity, and recriminations have had plenty of theoretical and practical ground from which to rise. The crucial question now is whether or not our communities have sufficiently discerning and courageous leadership, as well as the necessary moral and spiritual strength, to seek and to find both in their common roots as well as in their own respective traditions, principles and values upon which to build bases for a gradual great reversal. That reversal can only be positive, respectful, just, and cooperative relationships worthy of the God of mercy and justice whom they claim to worship. In so doing, they would also serve as faithful and luminous witnesses to other conflicting religious communities.

        We must be realistic and admit our human limitations, as much as we may be inspired by the divine possibilities, because of an additional strong reason. On both sides we have many co-religionists for whom dialogue, as modernity itself, is contrary to faithfulness. For them dialogue, especially between Jews and Christians, is not only too late in history but also a betrayal of our particular histories. For such faithful people, and admittedly claimants of a longer historical polemical tradition than the dialogical one, “Commitment to the Future” is exactly the same as “Faithfulness to Roots.”^[138] The two parts of the present topic would be tautological! These are brothers and sisters whom we must constantly seek to include both in our field of vision as well as, wherever and whenever possible, in the dialogical process itself. This call does not signify merely strategic interests to win them over to the principle of dialogue but also, and more so, to consider respectfully their witness and learn from it in order that the dialogical process itself may be authenticated and enriched to the maximum degree of faithfulness and truth.

        As for me, I should lay my cards on the table and say that, after much prayer and long thinking, I have long been committed to the principle of dialogue on intrinsic theological and spiritual grounds. I firmly believe that my personal faith in Christ and my commitment to the Orthodox Church not merely permit but actually propel me toward dialogue which, without compromise to the transcendent claims of the Christian Orthodox faith, seeks God's love, truth, justice, and peace among all peoples. The perspective of this personal testimony, I should openly admit, certainly informs the treatment of my whole topic but especially what I am about to say concerning “Commitment to the Future.”