Commitment to the Future.

        One of the primary nuances of the verb “to commit,” should one consult an English dictionary, is to put someone into charge of something or, even more appropriately for our topic, to entrust or consign something of value for future preservation.  Indeed, faithfulness to the roots necessarily implies commitment to the preservation of the gifts and treasures of those roots. It was wise of the organizers of the conference not to use the superficial expression “openness to the future” because commitment, as well as faithfulness, imply an obligation, indeed a binding pledge, to matters of the highest importance for our respective communities. Both as Jews and Orthodox Christians we do not come to the contemporary world and face the future with empty hands. On the contrary we carry on our backs rich heritages and immeasurable treasures, even if our hands sometimes seem shamefully empty to us and to others.

          But another significant nuance of the verb “to commit” is to make available or to put something at someone’s disposal. Commitment implies not only preservation but also responsible use and effective availability of the treasures of our roots for the present and future generations. I submit that faithfulness, too, carries a similar equivalent force of meaning. True faithfulness bears within itself the responsibility of the discerning and effective use and application of God's gifts in the present and the future for the benefit of humanity and for the glory of God. In the ongoing process of change and adaptation in changing historical circumstances, a blind faithfulness to roots may well turn out to be unfaithfulness! No one, but a stubborn and blind person, can possibly deny change and growth in the traditions of our religious communities. The critical question is how to guide the continuity of tradition in such an authentically faithful way that its gifts and treasures may shine brightly and usefully for the urgent issues of our times as well as the practical needs of daily life. From this perspective continuity and renewal, involving both spiritual and practical aspects, go together and make available the treasures of our roots as living realities. Thus the religious community, and each member thereof, ought to be faithful to a living tradition, always penetrated by the spirit of renewal, and not merely be enslaved to the forms of a dead past.

        I must now try to exemplify the above concepts on the basis of the outline of “the roots” given earlier in the paper. This indeed is a very delicate and most difficult task. Permit me the caveat that what follows are suggestive lines of thought rather than well-defined principles. In view of the subjects and questions raised, I would be utterly presumptuous to offer anything but expressions of my own life-long struggles with continuity and renewal within my own religious community. I do so in good faith, trusting in the loving correction of my Orthodox colleagues to whom I mainly speak, as well as counting on the principle of consensus so highly valued in the Christian Orthodox community. If my words have some meaning and relevance for the Jewish participants as well, I would be delighted and thankful to the One whom we address as Father in heaven.

        The earlier outline of “the roots” or fundamental areas of faithfulness is intentionally hierarchical. Our primary faithfulness is to the living God, the sovereign Lord Himself, who stands within but also over the community of faith and all its innumerable institutions, teachings, and practices which constitute the ongoing life of His people. The first and greatest commandment is: “The Lord is our God, the Lord alone, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut. 6:4-5). And the second great commandment is: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18). Jesus and another Jewish sage agreed that these two commandments are “much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Mk 12:29-34) and sum up the entire biblical heritage of “the law and the prophets” (Mt. 22:30). Here is the essence of our shared spirituality as Jews and Christians in obedience to the living God.

        Continuity and renewal meet and interact most essentially at the point in which we worship, pray, and live in such faithfulness to and intimacy with the Holy One that we put nothing in His place or even above Him, not even His precious gifts to us, which would constitute a kind of idolatry. All conflicts between Jews and Christians have ultimately derived from either unwitting or willful forgetfulness of our common rootedness in and disobedience of the two greatest commandments. We have tended too easily to put “our religion” in the place of the transcendent God, and in the place of the dignity of our neighbor, and thus made our religion God instead of God our religion. If I walk humbly before the Lord my God, and truly love Him as the One who commands love and mercy, justice and peace towards all, how could I long entertain evil thoughts of prejudice and enmity — much less raise up audaciously a hand of violence, injustice, or exploitation — against any people, even those with whom I may strongly disagree? Christ has taught His followers to love even their enemies and to pray for those who persecute them, yet not necessarily to agree with their principles and values. Deep renewal in inter-religious relations cannot occur without such a humble and fervent faith in God and without discerning the great difference between godly respect for others and disagreement with them over transcendent values.

        The sharpest difference between Christian and Jews is Christ who paradoxically both binds and separates us. It is said by scholars that Christ and Christianity do not constitute a theological problem for Judaism but rather that Judaism constitutes such a problem for Christianity.^[139] But Rabbi Jacob B. Agus has wisely observed: “If our self-awareness as Jews is determined by our overview of Jewish history, we cannot but regard the emergence of the Christian branch out of the Jewish stem     as the most momentous event in our millennial experience.”^[140]

        Along with the historical results, Rabbi Agus goes on to point out that, through Christianity, “the God of Israel triumphed over the pagan deities and all of their works. . . a magnificent triumph,” which paradoxically “was associated with a systematic denigration, even the demonization of, the Jew.” I tend to agree with this view but abhor the pernicious Christian backwash for Jews. Yet I do not see how history and theology can be separated pertaining to these painful issues. We are as Jews and Christians, both historically and theologically, not only problems but also gifts, one might dare say, to one another, and should be, precisely because of our common spiritual roots and mutual experiences in history. Apart from the sufferings inflicted upon Jews, and sometimes upon Christians, perhaps God would not have it any other way! Certainly the Apostle Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews (Phil. 3:5), who continued to be a Jew among Jews (1 Cor. 9:20), certainly saw it that way (Rom. chap. 11)!

        But should the role of Christ, and the consequent trinitarian experience and understanding of the mystery of God, be valid sources of mutual conflict, rather than mutual joy and mutual witness, between Jews and Christians, despite the sad history of our religious communities from the inception of Christianity? Both Jews and Christian Gentiles ought to rejoice that the Holy One of Israel elected to call all Gentiles to be His people through Christ. It is true that Jews and Christians have sharply clashing views regarding the dignity and role of Jesus, as well as the dignity and role of the Mosaic Law, in salvation history according to the deep religious experiences of their respective communities. But these transcendent claims on both sides need not necessarily lead to conflict but to profound spiritual meditation and theological thinking. Patriarch Athenagoras of blessed memory once, in the context of Christian ecumenism, defined theology as “a celebration of truth” rather than as “a weapon” to be use against others. This definition, filled with as much truth as beauty, is applicable as well to the dialogue between the Jewish and Christian communities. Jews and Christians, mindful of their primary faithfulness to the Lord God and His inscrutable mystery of salvation for all peoples, ought to rejoice and celebrate in utter humility and freedom, undefiled by proselytism, their mutual respect for and witness to one another and thus together to work toward the fulfilment of God's purposes in the world.

        A Jew qua Jew ought to rejoice that a substantial part of the Jewish spiritual heritage is universally spread to the nations through the good news of Christ, notwithstanding the sins of Christians. A Christian qua Christian ought to rejoice that the Holy One of Israel is worshiped, praised, and obeyed by Jews all over the world, notwithstanding the sins of Jews. Who has not sinned? Who has not been not disobedient? Who needs no repentance before the Lord God? Christians above all on account of their numerous theoretical and practical expressions of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism.^[141] Yet if our primary faithfulness is truly to the Lord God, our Father in heaven, we would nurture “in fear and trembling,” to use a Pauline expression from another context (Phil. 2:12), mutual respect toward one another and toward our respective deep religious claims. Conflict could arise, as it did arise, only if and when one community insists that the other must accept its claims or when one community shows contempt and denigrates the claims of the other contrary to the admonitions of the Apostle Paul (Rom. 11:13-21).

        For example, appropriate respect and peace in the Name of the Lord God could be maintained even if a reflective Jew would say to a Christian, “Jesus of Nazareth was only a prophet, a charismatic rabbi, or perhaps even a radical son of Judaism who called for an unacceptable renewal of Judaism,” but the same Jew would necessarily have to add humbly, “for my community and me,” that is, as we Jews understand the mysterious workings of the Lord God in history. Similarly, appropriate respect and peace could be maintained in the Name of the Lord God if a reflective Christian would say to a Jew, “the dispensation of the Mosaic Law has ended by being fulfilled by the dispensation of Christ,” or even to say, “your view of God can be enriched through a trinitarian understanding,” but the same Christian would have to add humbly, “for my community and me,” that is, as we understand the mysterious workings of the Lord God in history. Then they could say to each other, if interested: “Let us therefore discuss together these important matters in mutual love and respect, under mutual faithfulness to the Lord God, and see what we can learn about each other, and from each other, and even clarify our own ideas and convictions about our own respective faiths. Above all, let the truth itself, revealed in grace and love, draws us to itself and leads us in freedom.”^[142]

        If we are strong and mature in our own personal faith, what true need is there to deny the revelatory experiences of one another's religious communities and the deep convictions of their members, and consequently to let conflicts arise? Where there is true faithfulness to and love for the living God, there is none such true need. But there are many false and pernicious needs at work in history: willful and ignorant zeal, wrong use of Scriptures, subtle psychological efforts to hold on to one's own weak or immature religious convictions by denying or attacking the religious convictions of others, and even a triumphalistic collective ego of a religious community stubbornly set to diminish, control, or even destroy another religious community. Add to this the too human cultural, social, political, and economic self-interests, and you have the ugly soup of the painful tragedies of history insofar as abuse of religion is concerned. In such cases we have placed “our religion” on the throne of the almighty God and presume to judge others, denying their God-given freedom of conscience and in the process committing idolatry, blasphemy, and injustice, all in the Name of God. A scandalous result is that religion, instead of being a liberating power inspiring culture and people to mutual respect, justice, and peace, is perverted into a kind of satanic force to hate, slander, and destroy others. “And no wonder!” we might say with Saint Paul's words used in another context. For those who are fanatically and self-righteously blind to God's love and truth, “even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14).

        If the sharpest theological disagreement between Jews and Christians can be faithfully treated and discussed in a humble and respectful manner, thus preserving continuity while working at renewal, in the relations between the Jewish and Christian communities, it is obvious that the other important areas of our “roots” can be discussed with less difficulty. Due to the length of my paper, I offer only a few comments on the three remaining major areas of faithfulness and commitment. With regard to the ongoing community as the nurturing ground of our life and faith, faithfulness to our community does not need to deny the right of other people to be faithful to their own communities. In particular Christians ought to re-learn and be repeatedly reminded of the welcome and joyous fact of the continuity of the Jewish people in history, the bare fact of which shows that God has neither rejected nor abandoned His people, just as Saint Paul long ago categorically declared (Rom. 11:1,11).

        Christian Orthodox theology ought to go at least as far as Saint Paul went in affirming that the Jewish people, despite their disobedience toward Christ, are still the elect people of God, and that Christian Gentiles are honorary citizens engrafted onto the rich tree of the Jewish heritage. Saint Paul severely warned Gentile Christians not to be haughty or boastful toward unbelieving Jews — much less to cultivate evil intent and engage in persecution against them — a critical warning largely and shamefully forgotten by Christians in history (Rom. 11:17-22). While it is true that, for the Apostle, the unbelieving Jews are in a state of disobedience regarding Christ, (that is, from the viewpoint of the Christian experience and understanding of salvation history, and in the case of Saint Paul, the specific conversion experience on the Damascus road), nevertheless he unreservedly affirmed their continued both electedness and existence. In fact, on account of the faithfulness of God Himself, Saint Paul could not possibly conceive of the end of the drama of salvation history without the participation of Jews as the climax of history by the hand of God Himself (Rom. 11:15,28-36). Christians have remembered the Jews as “enemies” but not as “beloved” of God (Rom. 11:28). Christians have taken to heart Saint Paul's critiques of the Jews, and used them viciously against Jews, but have forgotten Saint Paul's ineffable, sacrificial love for the Jews and their sacred traditions (Rom. 9:1-5).

        Had Christian leaders heeded Saint Paul's vision and taught Christian people accordingly over the centuries, the history of Christian-Jewish relations would have been quite different. Christians in history would not have ironically proven themselves “superior” to Jews in unfaithfulness to the Lord God by denigrating and persecuting His people. Nicholas Berdyaev, the Russian Orthodox religious philosopher poignantly wrote: “Perhaps the saddest thing to admit is that those who rejected the Cross have to carry it, while those who welcomed it are often engaged in crucifying the other.”^[143] Part of the commitment to the future toward renewal in this area means unreserved Christian affirmation of the theological validity of the continuity of the Jewish people as God's people, as well as the validity and continuity of the Sinai Covenant for Jews,^[144] however disobedient they may be in His eyes, just as Christians are also His people, disobedient though they surely have been according to their own and many ways in His eyes. Moreover, God has given both of His peoples, Jews and Christians, a charge to fulfill. We have positive and constructive work to do in the world. We have forgotten that we are servant communities of God, not self-righteous critics or exploiters of society or of each other, being entrusted with a mission by God which as yet we are far from having rightly and fully accomplished.

        As far our “roots” in terms of God's gifts to us from Abraham to Paul, from Moses to Christ, from the Sinai and Golgotha Covenants, from the Mosaic Law to the Sermon of the Mount, all these ought to be, as mentioned above, faithfully regarded with honor and awe as God's gifts. We disagree in our interpretation and application of them but surely in faithfulness to the Giver we must respectfully allow each community to witness to these gifts in its own way on the basis of freedom and far from any shades of proselytism. Saint Paul was convinced that the period of the Mosaic Law had come to an end and had been fulfilled by Christ, according to his experience of Jesus of Nazareth as the risen Lord of Glory (Gal. 3:23-29; Rom. 10:4; 1 Cor. 2:8). However, he continued to regard the Mosaic Law as “holy,” “good,” and “spiritual” (Rom. 7:12-14) and did not hesitate to use it for Christian instruction (1 Cor. 9:8-9; cf. John 1:17; 4:22). Although the Apostle advocated freedom from the Mosaic Law for Gentile Christians, he neither expected nor preached that believing Jews in Christ — much less unbelieving Jews — had to abandon observance of the Law.^[145]    Moreover, as well known, the Orthodox Church reveres Abraham, Moses, the prophets, and many other figures in the Hebrew Scriptures as saints. We have so much to learn about each other and from one another. Orthodox Christianity long ago exorcized the ghost of the early Christian arch-heretic Marcion who renounced the Old Testament and reviled all things Jewish. Orthodox Christianity never fell into the Western temptation of contrasting Law and Gospel, free will and grace, works and faith, nor consequently into the inclination to “demonize” the Jewish heritage as being intrinsically legalistic and lacking grace. However, Orthodox cultures admittedly have developed frightful and noxious popular traditions denigrating Jews as an ongoing people on the basis of wrong inferences drawn from the Scriptures, liturgical texts, and popular customs.^[146]

        The fourth and final major area of “the roots” is the whole complex and variegated fabric of the innumerable institutions, rites, customs, teachings, values, offices, sacred documents, written rules, and oral traditions which express the actual life of our communities. On the one hand, faithfulness to these roots is vital because they represent the practical and front-line faith experience for all of us. On the other hand, to absolutize all of these faith expressions and put them on the same level of importance could prove to be an act of unfaithfulness to the very nature, spirit, and mission of our communities as servant communities of God. It is here that we must be especially careful not to give to these various traditions the kind of faithfulness that only belongs to God. We must not also identify our religious values with our ethnic self-interests, a potentially dangerous mixture, although religious values and ethnic interests can also have noble and liberating aspects. Differentiation between religion and ethnicity, at least in theory, is probably easier for Orthodox Christians than for Jews. However, with regard to this area of faithfulness and commitment toward renewal, each community must deal primarily with its own members. A general operative principle that we share is the principle of distinguishing the greater from the lesser, the constitutive from the useful, the irreformable from the reformable, as time marches on and the circumstances of life change.

        Let me end with a telling example about both the possibilities and difficulties regarding continuity and renewal in my own Orthodox community on a practical level. Metropolitan Chrysostomos of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople was one of the first Orthodox theologians to distinguish between Tradition and traditions as a principle of ecumenical change and renewal in a programmatic article published in 1960.^[147] Thirty one years later the Metropolitan published another article dealing with the same issue but on a practical, popular level. An ordinary Orthodox Christian posed the occasional question to the Metropolitan: “Has the Church aged,” that is, has the Church become irrelevant to contemporary society?^[148] The Metropolitan graciously sympathized with the question and used it to formulate a mild prophetic call for change in the Orthodox Church, offering several examples, among them the activation of the laity in the life of the Church. To those of us who live in the West, Orthodox Christians included, this subject appears frequently on our agenda. But the power of tradition in traditional Orthodox lands compelled the Metropolitan to spend enormous attention to defending and qualifying the concept of any change in the Church. The authority of traditional consciousness in which allegedly nothing changes, including a tradition of heavy clericalism in native Orthodox countries, the eminent and enlightened Metropolitan had to write ever so guardedly to justify such an obviously legitimate and welcome task as the activation of lay ministries in the Church! This is only one example of the dynamics of continuity and renewal in theory and practice. The possibilities of renewal are many as they are wide, but the road ahead is long and difficult. But the good Lord, blessed be His Name, is merciful and patient.

[1].  Thomas Hopko, “Orthodox in Post-Modern Pluralistic Societies,” Orthodoxy and Culture, ed. Ioan Sauca (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1996), pp. 137-150.

[2].  Hopko, pp. 143-146.

[3].  For an excellent book on faith and reason in the Church Fathers, and the interaction of Christianity and Hellenism in antiquity, see Jaroslav Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993).

[4].  Saint Basil the Great, Monastic Rules II, Question 43.1.  In the context St. Basil lifts up Christ’s example of love and humility to be practiced especially by Church leaders.  Saint John Climacos, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Step 1, similarly writes: “A Christian is an imitator of Christ in thought, word and deed, as far as this is humanly possible.”  In 1 Jn 2:6 we read: “He who says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked.”

[5].  See The Homilies of Saint John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 1.1-3.  For the convenience of the general reader, the English translation for all the cited works of Chrysostom in this chapter, except for his In Praise of Saint Paul, is that of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff and reprinted by Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company over the past several decades.  I have consulted the original Greek in the series edited by P. Christou and Th. Zisis, The Greek Fathers of the Church and published in Thessalonike.

[6].  On Matthew, Homily 1.13.

[7].  On John, Homily 18.4.

[8].  On John, Homily 37.1.

[9].  On Romans, Homily 1 (Rom. 1:1).

[10].  On Matthew, Homily 1.4.

[11].  Ibid.

[12].  On Matthew, Homily 1.6.

[13].  On First Corinthians, Homily 8.7.

[14].  Ibid.

[15].  On John, Homily 20.3.

[16].  On First Corinthians, Homily 38.2.

[17].  On Galatians, Chapter 1 (Gal. 1:7).  Chrysostom’s work on Galatians is arranged according to commentary notes rather than developed homilies.

[18].  Saint Athanasios, On the Incarnation of the Word, translated and edited by a Religious of C.S.M.V. with an Introduction by C. S. Lewis (London, 1953), Chap. 30, p. 61.

[19].  Ibid., Chap. 55, pp. 93-94.

[20].  St. John Chrysostom, In Praise of St. Paul, translated by Thomas Halton (Boston, 1963), pp. 69-70.

[21].  On Acts, Homily 1.

[22].  Ibid.

[23].  On Acts, Homily 4.

[24].  On First Corinthians, Homily 3.7-8.

[25].  On First Corinthians, Homily 3.8.

[26].  On First Corinthians, Homily 4.8.

[27].  On John, Homily 63.3.

[28].  On John, Homilies 4.2 and 24.3.

[29].  On First Corinthians 5.4.

[30].  On Romans, Homily 2.

[31].  On John, Homily 10.2-3.

[32].  On Matthew, Homily 1.17.

[33].  Ibid.

[34].  On John, Homily 2.11.

[35].  On John, Homily 1.5.

[36].  On John, Homily 2.11.

[37].  On John, Homily 3.1.

[38].  On First Corinthians, Homily 3.9.

[39].  On First Corinthians, Homily 4.11

[40].  On First Corinthians, Homily 36.7.

[41].  On First Corinthians, Homily 7.20.

[42].  On First Corinthians, Homily 15.6.

[43].  I borrow this expression from the title of Joseph A. Fitzmeyer's book Scripture, the Soul of Theology (New York:  Paulist Press, 1994).

[44].  Thomas Torrance, The Relevance of Orthodoxy (Stirling:  Drummond Press, n.d.), pp. 10-11.

[45].  The complete hymn reads as follows:  “Only-begotten Son and Word of God, although immortal, You humbled Yourself for our salvation, taking flesh from the holy Theotokos and ever virgin Mary and, without change, becoming man.  Christ, our God, You were crucified but conquered death by death.  Your are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit — save us!”

[46].  Sometimes one hears or reads about a false generalization that Eastern Orthodoxy features a “theology of the resurrection” as compared to the “theology of the cross” of the Western Christian tradition.  In fact Orthodoxy has a profound vision of the cross both in worship and spirituality.  Orthodoxy knows no resurrection without the cross and no cross without the resurrection, viewing these redemptive events as inseparable.

[47].  For an interpretation of the mode of Christ's presence in the eucharistic gifts in Orthodox perspective, see my article “Christ, Church and Eucharist,” in Diakonia 18 (2, 1983) 100-127 and reprinted in a collection of essays entitled The Good News of Christ (Brookline:  Holy Cross Press, 1991), pp.52-79.

[48].  Two illuminating studies on the patristic tradition pertaining to some of these topics are by Jaroslav Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 1993) and Philip Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley:  University of California Press, 1994).

[49].  See St. John Chrysostom, In Praise of St. Paul, translated by Thomas Halton (Boston, 1963).

[50].  A  recent thorough account of St. John Chrysostom's life and struggles, including his commitment to Christian truth and his missionary interests, is by J. N. D. Kelly, Golden Mouth:  The Story of John Chrysostom (Ithaca:  Cornell University Press, 1995).

[51].  For a fuller account of Saint John Chrysostom’s understanding of the Gospel, see Chapter One.

[52].  Homilies on Matthew 1.4.

[53].  Ibid. 1.6.

[54].  One of Chrysostom's sharper critiques of the Church is to be found in Homily 36 on First Corinthians where he reflects on the vigor of early Christian worship and the charismatic phenomena mentioned by Saint Paul in 1 Cor 14.  In contrast, Chrysostom bewails the conditions of his contemporary Church which he likens to a woman fallen from her former prosperity and now exhibiting empty signs of her previous good estate.

[55].  In Praise of St. Paul, pp. 69-70.

[56].  Saint Paul's whole point is that the Galatian Christians have begun to practice Jewish customs, not that they were overly ethical, something which Paul requires as intrinsic to Christian life (Gal. 5:16-6:10).  The practice of sinful deeds excludes one from inheriting the kingdom (5:21; cf. 6:7).  Overall the Apostle Paul seems to distinguish three kinds of “works: “  1) “works of the flesh,” that is, rejectable sinful deeds (Gal. 5:19; Rom. 13:12; 1 Cor 6:9-11); “works of the law,” that is, the ritual injunctions of the Mosaic Law (Gal. 2:3,12-16; 4:10; 5:2), which are no longer required for salvation; and 3) “good works,” that is, ethical deeds (Rom. 2:6-16,21-26; Gal 5:6; 6:7-10), on the basis of which Christians, too, will be judged by God (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:21; 2 Cor 5:10).  Thus Paul's contrast between faith and works fundamentally concerns faith in Christ and specifically “works of the law,” namely, the ritual law, not the moral commandments of the Old Testament which remain valid and are fulfilled by Christ (Rom. 2:21-26; 8:4; 13:9; 1 Cor. 7:19).  Christ, the Gospel, and Christian existence fulfill, and do not reject or destroy, the moral law of the Old Testament (Mt. 5:17; Rom. 8:4; Gal 5:14).  Still, salvation is “by grace. . . through faith” in Christ and it is a “gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).  Faith in Christ and good works are integrated, not contrasted, much less opposed, by Paul who everywhere exhorts and demands necessary ethical obedience.  Paul teaches not only justification by faith but also judgment by good works.  

[57].  Homilies on John 10.2-3.

[58].  Ibid. 4.2 and 24.3.

[59].  Homilies on Romans 2.

[60].  Evagrios the Solitary, On Prayer:  One Hundred and Fifty-Three Texts in The Philokalia:  The Complete Text, Vol. 1, ed. by G. E. H. Palmer and others (London & Boston:  Faber and Faber, 1979), p. 62.

[61].  Saint Athanasios, On the Incarnation, translated and edited by a Religious of C.S.M.V. with an introduction by C. S. Lewis (London, 1953).

[62].  Ibid., p.  93 and Chap. 54 of Saint Athanasios’ work..

[63].  For use of this word I am indebted to Father John Romanides who has regularly employed the term “glorification” as a biblical term in order to avoid the Platonic philosophical implications of the term theosis.  A recent attempt to relate the Orthodox teaching of theosis to the Protestant understanding of salvation is by Risto Saarinen, “Salvation in the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue:  A Comparative Perspective” Pro Ecclesia 5 (2, 1996), pp. 202-213.

[64].  See On the Incarnation, pp. 33-37, 48-49, 54-56 and Chaps. 8, 10, 20, and 25 respectively in the same work.

[65].  I owe this observation to George Mantzarides, a Greek Orthodox scholar of Palamite studies.

[66].  See above, n. 18 for the first volume.  Volumes two and three appeared in 1981 and 1984.

[67].  For example Margaret R. Miles, Fullness of Life (Philadelphia:  Westminster, 1981); Roberta C. Bondi, To Love God as God Loves (Philadelphia:  Fortress Press, 1987), and several books by Henri Nouwen.

[68].  Published by Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, 1993.

[69].  Ibid., pp. 297-300.

[70].  The Philokalia:  The Complete Text, Vol. 1, pp. 125-146.

[71].  Ibid., p. 125.

[72].  Symeon the New Theologian:  The Discourses, translated by C. J. deCatanzaro (New York:  Paulist Press, 1980).  A recent doctoral dissertation by Helen Criticos Theodoropoulos, Love of God and Love of Neighbor in the Mystical Theology of  St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Symeon the New Theologian, Vols I-II, submitted to the University of Chicago (1995), provides a full bibliography on Symeon the New Theologian.

[73].  The only other Christian authors formally called “Theologians” in the Orthodox tradition are John the Evangelist and Gregory (Nazianzen) the Theologian.

[74].  Saint Symeon,  Discourses, p. 353.

[75].  Saint Symeon,  Discourses, p. 355.

[76].  Saint Symeon,  Discourses, p. 350.

[77].  Saint Symeon,  Discourses, p. 298.

[78].  St. Syemon,  Discourses, p. 354.

[79].  Anastasios Yannoulatos, “Discovering the Orthodox Missionary Ethos,” Martyria/Mission: The Witness of the Orthodox Churches Today, edited by Ion Bria (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1980), pp. 20-29.

[80].  Ibid., p. 20.

[81].  Peter E. Gillquist, Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith (Ben Lomond: Conciliar Press, 1992) and the abundance of literature published by Conciliar Press.  A similar evangelical stirring through incoming coverts is occurring in England.  See Michael Harper, A Faith Fulfilled: Why Are Christians Across Great Britain Embracing Orthodoxy? (Ben Lomond: Conciliar Press, 1999).

[82].  David W. Henderson, Culture Shift: Communicating God’s Truth to Our Changing World (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 16.  See also Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) and Nancey Murphy, Anglo-American Postmodernity: Philosophical Perspectives on Science, Religion, and Ethics (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997).

[83].  Henderson, p. 183.

[84].  Alexander Schmemann, “Problems of Orthodoxy in America: The Spiritual Problem,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 9 (4, 1965), pp. 171-193. 

[85].  Ibid., p. 174.

[86].  In his keynote address to the Clergy-Laity Congress in Dallas, Texas, entitled “Rekindling an Orthodox Awareness.”

[87].  Commission on the Archdiocesan Theological Agenda, “Report to His Eminence Archbishop Iakovos,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 34 (1989), pp. 283-306.  This report, dealing with issues of faith, leadership, the parish, and social realities facing the Church, and including a modern Greek translation, was republished in a separate small volume and distributed to all the delegates of the Clergy-Laity Congress in Washington, D.C. (1990) under the title: Report to His Eminence Archbishop Iakovos Concerning the Future Theological Agenda of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1990).  It is still highly instructive today.

[88].  St. Athanasios, On the Incarnation of the Word, trans. and ed. by a Religious of C.S.M.V. with an Introduction by C. S. Lewis (London: Mowbray, 1953), p. 61.  The citation occurs in chapter 30 of St. Athanasios’s work.

[89].  This idea and language is taken from W. A. Elwell and R. W. Yarbrough, Encountering the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 138.

[90].  See further Theodore Stylianopoulos, The Good News of Christ: Essays on the Gospel, Sacraments and Spirit (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1991), pp. 1-29.

[91].  Anthony Coniaris, Preaching the Word of God (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1983), pp. 8-9.

[92].  Archimandrite Sophrony, Wisdom from Mount Athos, translated by Rosemary Edmonds (New York, 1975), pp. 26-27.

[93].  Translated by Rosemary Edmonds (London, 1958).

[94].  Both were translated by Rosemary Edmonds but The Monk of Mount Athos was published in England (London & Oxford: Mowbrays, 1973), whereas Wisdom from Mount Athos was published in America (Crestwood: St. Vladminir’s Seminary Press, 1974).

[95].  Monk, p. 11.

[96].  Wisdom, p. 59.

[97].  Monk, p. 19.

[98].  Wisdom, p. 37.

[99].  Ibid., p. 19.

[100].  Ibid., p. 104.

[101].  Monk, p. 41.

[102].  Wisdom, p. 117.

[103].  Ibid., p. 86.

[104].  Archimandrite Sophrony, His Life Is Mine, translated by Rosemary Edmonds (Oxford, 1977), p. 76.

[105].  Wisdom, p.19.

[106].  Ibid., p. 42.

[107].  Ibid., p. 30.

[108].  Ibid., p.  76.

[109].  Ibid., p. 23.

[110].  Ibid., p. 21.

[111].  Ibid., p. 22.

[112].  Ibid., p. 59.

[113].  Ibid., pp. 102.

[114].  Ibid., p. 85.

[115].  Ibid., p. 111.

[116].  Ibid.

[117].  Monk, p. 32.

[118].  Wisdom, p. 26.

[119].  Ibid., 30.

[120].  Ibid., p. 32.

[121].  Ibid., p. 120.

[122].  Ibid., pp. 118-119.

[123].  Ibid., pp. 91-92.

[124].  Fr. Alexander Schmemann’s articles were published in St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, Vol. 8, Numbers 2 and 4, and Vol. 9, Number 4 (1964-65).,

[125].  Metropolitan Chrysostomos’ article was published in Episkepsis, February 1, 1991, a bulletin of the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Geneva, Switzerland.

[126].  Fr. Thomas Hopko, “Orthodoxy in Post-Modern Pluralistic Societies,” Orthodoxy and Cultures (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1996), pp. 137-150.

[127].  Published in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. 34 (3, 1989), pp. 283-306, and also separately under the title Report to His Eminence Archbishop Iakovos Concerning the Future Theological Agenda of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese by Holy Cross Orthodox Press (1990).

[128]. See the news report “Celebrating a Confession,” in the Christian Century, November 12, 1980, p. 1085.

[129]. Alexander Schmemann, “Problems of Orthodoxy in America: III. The Spiritual Problem,” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, Vol. 9 (4, 1965), pp. 171-193.

[130].  A hymn taken from the sixth canticle of Mattins of the Sunday of the Prodigal Son.

[131]. The first officially sponsored dialogue between Jewish and largely Greek Orthodox scholars occurred in New York (1972) at the initiative of Archbishop Iakovos and the late Marc H. Tanenbaum.  The papers of this meeting were published in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies 13 (4, 1976) and The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 22 (1, 1977).  Two international consultations between Jewish and a wider circle of Orthodox scholars took place in Lucerne (1977) and Bucharest (1979).  The papers of these meetings were published respectively in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 24 (4, 1979) and in a book by the Romanian Patriarchate under the title The Christian Orthodox-Jewish Consultation II (no editor or date given).  A third international conference, a larger gathering of Orthodox and Jewish scholars, occurred in Athens, March 21-24, 1993.  The papers of this conference were edited by Malcolm Lowe and published under the title Orthodox Christians and Jews on Continuity and Renewal — The third Academic Meeting between Orthodoxy and Judaism in the periodical Immanuel 26/27 (1994).

[132].  The only documented conference between Orthodox and Muslims in modern times, known to this writer, occurred in March 1985 at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology and its papers published under the title Orthodox Christians and Muslims, edited by N. M. Vaporis (Brookline: Holy Cross Press, 1986).  There have been contacts between Orthodox and Muslims in Turkey and the Middle East but information about them is unavailable.  In previous centuries, a few meetings between Orthodox and Muslims occurred in the form of debates and disputes.

[133].  See note 1 for the bibliographical information. 

[134].  Shemaryahu Talmon, “Torah as a Concept and Vital Principle in the Hebrew Bible,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 24 (4, 1979), p. 271.

[135].   In The Christian Orthodox-Jewish Consultation II, the article by Israel Singer, “The Individual and the Community in the Jewish Tradition,” pp. 56-69 explains variegations within the larger Jewish community, including “the acute problem” between religious and non-religious Jews (p. 63).

[136]. See the different approaches of Demetrios J. Constantelos, “Greek Orthodox-Jewish Relations in Historical Perspective,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 22 (1, 1977), pp. 6-16, and Zvi Ankori, “Greek Orthodox-Jewish Relations in Historic Perspective — The Jewish View,” in the save volume, pp. 17-57.  Constantelos emphasizes the tolerance toward Jews under the Byzantine Empire, while Ankori points up more sharply the conflicts without rejecting that there were also welcome periods of tolerance.

[137]. Ankori, especially pp. 28-46, analytically exposes the forces, sources, and areas of friction between Christians and Jews in the Byzantine Empire, including political and geographic interests which continue to the present.  We can now add other Christian Orthodox-Jewish disputes in the Holy Land, including the murder of an Orthodox monk at the site of the Well of Jacob some years ago and the current occupation of Saint John's Hospice by Jews against the strong protests of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem.  In Israel and other lands of the Middle East there are Arab Orthodox Christians whose human rights are violated on a daily basis, a major factor in their own violent reactions as a people.  The World Council of Churches has supported the rights of Palestinian Christians and Muslims numerous times, of course not without by Jewish objections and justifications.

[138].  The Jewish scholar Michael Wyschogrod, “Tradition and Society  in Judaism,” in The Christian Orthodox-Jewish Consultation II, p. 24, writes that from a certain viewpoint “the very attempt to distinguish between scripture and tradition is futile.”  A number of Orthodox Christians would agree but the majority of Orthodox scholars usually do not.  See Elias Jones-Golitzin, “The Role of the Bible in the Orthodox Tradition,” in the same volume, who writes, “although Scripture and Tradition cannot be separated, they can be distinguished,” p. 39.

[139].   For example, the Jewish scholar Seymour Siegel, “Judaism and Eastern Orthodoxy:  Theological Reflections,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 22, (1, 1977), p. 64.

[140].  Jacob B. Agus, “Judaism and the New Testament,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 22, (1, 1977), p. 86.

[141].  Seymour Siegel, cited above (note 9), p. 65, rightly attacks the sin of anti-semitism and quotes the paradox of this sin by quoting the Orthodox religious philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev, Christianity and Anti-Semitism (Aldington: Kent Publishing Company, 1952), p. 12, who formulates this paradox in a striking way:  “Perhaps the saddest thing to admit is that those who rejected the Cross have to carry it, while those who welcomed it are often engaged in crucifying the other.”

[142].  I trust that my words and line of argument clearly suggest that, contrary to a number of Western scholars, I do not in any way call for a diminishment of New Testament Christology or the classic Christology of the Church, which I view and believe as continuous and coherent, as a basis for the renewal of Jewish-Christian relations.  In fact such diminishment of Christology neutralizes and cancels authentic dialogue precisely because it is, on the part of Christians, a foolish and destructive expression of lack of faithfulness to Christ and to the Christian community.  It also strikes at the heart of the enduring power of Christianity, especially the so-called mainline churches in our times. 

[143].  Quoted by Siegel (see above, note 11).

[144]. An exceptional example of this Orthodox theological approach is by George C. Papademetriou, Essays on Orthodox Christian-Jewish Relations (Bristol: Wyndham Hall Press, 1990). I take this opportunity also to correct myself on an essential point made in my article, “New Testament Issues in Jewish-Christian Relations,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 22 (1, 1977), p. 77, where I endorsed A. Roy Eckardt's critique of Saint Paul as teaching a “non-functional election” for Jews who do not believe in Christ.  I no longer interpret Rom. 11 in this fashion.  Rather, it is my judgment that, though disobedient regarding Christ, they are still the elect people of God, according to Saint Paul.  Insofar as God continues to have plans for all Jews, even during the period of the call of the Gentiles, His election of Jews continues.  There is no such thing as “non-functioning election” according to the Apostle Paul and certainly according to God whose faithfulness to the Jewish people could not be questioned according to the Apostle.

[145].  For Jewish and Christian Orthodox perspectives on the Law, see S. Talmon, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 24 (4, '79), pp. 271-289, and  Basilios Stoyiannos, “The Law in the New Testament from an Orthodox Point of View,” in the same volume, pp. 309-322

[146].  Popular examples of Christian Orthodox anti-Judaism and even anti-Semitism include the blood libel, the burning of the effigy of Judas during Holy Week in some lands, and anti-Jewish gestures of abuse or even persecution during Holy Week which long, uncritical tradition has carried with it. 

[147].  Chrysostomos Konstantinidis, “The Significance of the Eastern and Western Traditions within Christendom,” in Orthodoxy: A Faith and Order Dialogue (Geneva:  WCC Publications, 1960).

[148].  Chrysostomos Konstantinidis, “Ekklesia gerasmene” (Has the Church Aged)?” in Episkepsis, February 1, 1991, a bulletin of the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Geneva.