Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future

by Seraphim Rose

  No: “Christ,” no matter how redefined or reinterpreted, cannot be the common denominator of the “dialogue with non-Christian religions,” but at best can only be added as an afterthought to a unity which is discovered somewhere else. The only possible common denominator among all religions is the totally vague concept of the “spiritual,” which indeed offers religious “liberals” almost unbounded opportunity for nebulous theologizing.

  The address of Metropolitan Georges Khodre to the Central Committee meeting of the WCC at Addis Ababa in January 1971, may be taken as an early, experimental attempt to set forth such a “spiritual” theology of the “dialogue with non-Christian religions.”2 In raising the question as to “whether Christianity is so inherently exclusive of other religions as has generally been proclaimed up to now,” the Metropolitan, apart from his few rather absurd “projections” of Christ into non-Christian religions, has one main point: it is the “Holy Spirit,” conceived as totally independent of Christ and His Church, that is really the common denominator of all the world’s religions. Referring to the prophecy that I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh (Joel 2:28), the Metropolitan states, “This must be taken to mean a Pentecost which is universal from the very first.... The advent of the Spirit in the world is not subordinated to the Son.... The Spirit operates and applies His energies in accordance with His own economy and we could, from this angle, regard the non-Christian religions as points where His inspiration is at work” (p. 172). We must, he believes, “develop an ecclesiology and a missiology in which the Holy Spirit occupies a supreme place” (p. 166).

  All of this, of course, constitutes a heresy which denies the very nature of the Holy Trinity and has no aim but to undermine and destroy the whole idea and reality of the Church of Christ. Why, indeed, should Christ have established a Church if the Holy Spirit acts quite independently, not only of the Church, but of Christ Himself? Nonetheless, this heresy is here still presented rather tentatively and cautiously, no doubt with the aim of testing the response of other Orthodox “theologians” before proceeding more categorically.

  In actual fact, however, the “ecclesiology of the Holy Spirit” has already been written — and by an “Orthodox” thinker at that, one of the acknowledged “prophets” of the “spiritual” movement of our own day. Let us therefore examine his ideas in order to see the picture he gives of the nature and goal of the larger “spiritual” movement in which the “dialogue with non-Christian religions” has its place.

  3. “The New Age of the Holy Spirit”

  Nicholas Berdyaev (1874–1949) in any normal time would never have been regarded as an Orthodox Christian. He might best be described as a gnostic-humanist philosopher who drew his inspiration rather from Western sectarians and “mystics” than from any Orthodox sources. That he is called in some Orthodox circles even to this day an “Orthodox philosopher” or even “theologian,” is a sad reflection of the religious ignorance of our times. Here we shall quote from his writings.3

  Looking with disdain upon the Orthodox Fathers, upon the “monastic ascetic spirit of historical Orthodoxy,” indeed upon that whole “conservative Christianity which ... directs the spiritual forces of man only towards contrition and salvation,” Berdyaev sought rather the “inward Church,” the “Church of the Holy Spirit,” the “spiritual view of life which, in the 18th century, found shelter in the Masonic lodges.” “The Church,” he believed, “is still in a merely potential state,” is “incomplete”; and he looked to the coming of an “ecumenical faith,” a “fullness of faith” that would unite, not merely different Christian bodies (for “Christianity should be capable of existing in a variety of forms in the Universal Church”), but also “the partial truths of all the heresies” and “all the humanistic creative activity of modern man...as a religious experience consecrated in the Spirit.” A “New Christianity” is approaching, a “new mysticism, which will be deeper than religions and ought to unite them.” For “there is a great spiritual brotherhood ... to which not only the Churches of East and West belong, but also all those whose wills are directed towards God and the Divine, all in fact who aspire to some form of spiritual elevation” — that is to say, people of every religion, sect, and religious ideology. He predicted the advent of “a new and final Revelation”: “the New Age of the Holy Spirit,” resurrecting the prediction of Joachim of Floris, the 12th century Latin monk who saw the two ages of the Father (Old Testament) and the Son (New Testament) giving way to a final “Third Age of the Holy Spirit.” Berdyaev writes: “The world is moving towards a new spirituality and a new mysticism; in it there will be no more of the ascetic world view.” “The success of the movement towards Christian unity presupposes a new era in Christianity itself, a new and deep spirituality, which means a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit.”

  There is clearly nothing whatever in common between these super-ecumenist fantasies and Orthodox Christianity, which Berdyaev in fact despised. Yet anyone aware of the religious climate of our times will see that these fantasies in fact correspond to one of the leading currents of contemporary religious thought. Berdyaev does indeed seem to be a “prophet,” or rather, to have been sensitive to a current of religious thought and feeling which was not so evident in his day, but has become almost dominant today. Everywhere one hears of a new “movement of the Spirit,” and now a Greek Orthodox priest, Father Eusebius Stephanou, invites Orthodox Christians to join this movement when he writes of “the mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit in our day” (The Logos, January 1972). Elsewhere in the same publication (March 1972, p. 8), the Associate Editor Ashanin invokes not merely the name, but also the very program, of Berdyaev: “We recommend the writings of Nicholas Berdyaev, the great spiritual prophet of our age. This spiritual genius ... [is] the greatest theologian of spiritual creativeness.... Now the cocoon of Orthodoxy has been broken.... God’s Divine Logos is leading His people to a new understanding of their history and their mission in Him. The Logos [is the] herald of this new age, of the new posture of Orthodoxy.”

  4. The Present Book

  All of this constitutes the background of the present book, which is a study of the “new” religious spirit of our times that underlies and gives inspiration to the “dialogue with non-Christian religions.” The first three chapters offer a general approach to non-Christian religions and their radical difference from Christianity, both in theology and in spiritual life. The first chapter is a theological study of the “God” of the Near Eastern religions with which Christian ecumenists hope to unite on the basis of “monotheism.” The second concerns the most powerful of the Eastern religions, Hinduism, based on a long personal experience which ended in the author’s conversion from Hinduism to Orthodox Christianity; it also gives an interesting appraisal of the meaning for Hinduism of the “dialogue” with Christianity. The third chapter is a personal account of the meeting of an Orthodox priest-monk with an Eastern “miracle-worker” — a direct confrontation of Christian and non-Christian “spirituality.”

  The next four chapters are specific studies of some of the significant spiritual movements of the 1970s. Chapters Four and Five examine the “new religious consciousness” with particular reference to the “meditation” movements which now claim many “Christian” followers (and more and more “ex-Christians”). Chapter Six looks at the spiritual implications of a seemingly non-religious phenomenon of our times which is helping to form the “new religious consciousness” even among people who think they are far from any religious interest. The seventh chapter discusses at length the most controversial religious movement among “Christians” today — the “charismatic revival” — and tries to define its nature in the light of Orthodox spiritual doctrine.

  In the Conclusion the significance and goal of the “new religious consciousness” are discussed in the light of Christian prophecy concerning the last times. The “religion of the future” to which they point is set forth and contrasted with the only religion which is irreconcilably in conf
lict with it: true Orthodox Christianity. The “signs of the times,” as we approach the fearful decade of the 1980s, are all too clear; let Orthodox Christians, and all who wish to save their souls in eternity, take heed and act!

  I

  The “Monotheistic” Religions

  DO WE HAVE THE SAME GOD THAT NON-CHRISTIANS HAVE?

  By Fr. Basile Sakkas

  “The Hebrew and Islamic peoples, and Christians ... these three expressions of an identical monotheism, speak with the most authentic and ancient, and even the boldest and most confident voices. Why should it not be possible that the name of the same God, instead of engendering irreconcilable opposition, should lead rather to mutual respect, understanding and peaceful coexistence? Should the reference to the same God, the same Father, without prejudice to theological discussion, not lead us rather one day to discover what is so evident, yet so difficult — that we are all sons of the same Father, and that, therefore, we are all brothers?”

  Pope Paul VI, La Croix, Aug. 11, 1970

  ON Thursday, April 2, 1970, a great religious manifestation took place in Geneva. Within the framework of the Second Conference of the “Association of United Religions,” the representatives of ten great religions were invited to gather in the Cathedral of St. Peter. This “common prayer” was based on the following motivation: “The faithful of all these religions were invited to coexist in the cult of the same God!” Let us then see if this assertion is valid in the light of the Holy Scriptures.

  In order better to explain the matter, we shall limit ourselves to the three religions that have historically followed each other in this order: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. These three religions lay claim, in fact, to a common origin: as worshipers of the God of Abraham. Thus it is a very widespread opinion that since we all lay claim to the posterity of Abraham (the Jews and Moslems according to the flesh and the Christians spiritually), we all have as God the God of Abraham and all three of us worship (each in his own way, naturally) the same God. And this same God constitutes in some fashion our point of unity and of “mutual understanding,” and this invites us to a “fraternal relation,” as the Grand Rabbi Dr. Safran emphasized, paraphrasing the Psalm: “Oh, how good it is to see brethren seated together....”

  In this perspective it is evident that Jesus Christ, God and Man, the Son Co-eternal with the Father without beginning, His Incarnation, His Cross, His Glorious Resurrection and His Second and Terrible Coming — become secondary details which cannot prevent us from “fraternizing” with those who consider Him as “a simple prophet” (according to the Koran) or as “the son of a prostitute” (according to certain Talmudic traditions)! Thus we would place Jesus of Nazareth and Mohammed on the same level. I do not know what Christian worthy of the name could admit this in his conscience.

  One might say that in these three religions, passing over the past, one could agree that Jesus Christ is an extraordinary and exceptional being and that He was sent by God. But for us Christians, if Jesus Christ is not God, we cannot consider Him either as a “prophet” or as one “sent by God,” but only as a great imposter without compare, having proclaimed Himself “Son of God,” making Himself thus equal to God (Mark 14:61–62). According to this ecumenical solution on the supra-confessional level, the Trinitarian God of Christians would be the same thing as the monotheism of Judaism, of Islam, of the ancient heretic Sabellius, of the modern anti-Trinitarians, and of certain Illuminist sects. There would not be Three Persons in a Single Divinity, but a single Person, unchanging for some, or successively changing “masks” (Father-Son-Spirit) for others! And nonetheless one would pretend that this was the “same God.”

  Here some might naively propose: “Yet for the three religions there is a common point: all three confess God the Father!” But according to the Holy Orthodox Faith, this is an absurdity. We confess always: “Glory to the Holy, Consubstantial, Lifegiving and Indivisible Trinity.” How could we separate the Father from the Son when Jesus Christ affirms I and the Father are One (John 10:30); and St. John the Apostle, Evangelist, and Theologian, the Apostle of Love, clearly affirms: Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father (I John 2:23).

  But even if all three of us call God Father: of whom is He really the Father? For the Jews and the Moslems He is the Father of men in the plane of creation; while for us Christians He is, first of all, before the foundation of the world (John 17:24) the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:3), and through Christ He is our Father by adoption (Eph. 1:4–5) in the plane of redemption. What resemblance is there, then, between the Divine Paternity in Christianity and in the other religions?

  Others might say: “But all the same, Abraham worshipped the true God; and the Jews through Isaac and the Moslems through Hagar are the descendants of this true worshipper of God.” Here one will have to make several things clear: Abraham worshipped God not at all in the form of the unipersonal monotheism of the others, but in the form of the Holy Trinity. We read in the Holy Scripture: And the Lord appeared unto him at the Oaks of Mamre ... and he bowed himself toward the ground (Gen. 18:1–2). Under what form did Abraham worship God? Under the unipersonal form, or under the form of the Divine Tri-unity? We Orthodox Christians venerate this Old Testament manifestation of the Holy Trinity on the Day of Pentecost, when we adorn our churches with boughs representing the ancient oaks, and when we venerate in their midst the icon of the Three Angels, just as our father Abraham venerated it! Carnal descent from Abraham can be of no use to us if we are not regenerated by the waters of Baptism in the Faith of Abraham. And the Faith of Abraham was the Faith in Jesus Christ, as the Lord Himself has said: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it and was glad (John 8:56). Such also was the Faith of the Prophet King David, who heard the Heavenly Father speaking to His Consubstantial Son: The Lord said unto my Lord (Ps. 109:1; Acts 2:34). Such was the Faith of the Three Youths in the fiery furnace when they were saved by the Son of God (Dan. 3:25); and of the holy Prophet Daniel, who had the Vision of the two natures of Jesus Christ in the Mystery of the Incarnation when the Son of Man came to the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:13). This is why the Lord, addressing the (biologically incontestable) posterity of Abraham, said: If ye were the children of Abraham, ye would do the works of Abraham (John 8:39), and these “works” are to believe on Him Whom God hath sent (John 6:29).

  Who then are the posterity of Abraham? The sons of Isaac according to the flesh, or the sons of Hagar the Egyptian? Is Isaac or Ishmael the posterity of Abraham? What does the Holy Scripture teach by the mouth of the divine Apostle? Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed: which is Christ (Gal. 3:16). And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:29). It is then in Jesus Christ that Abraham became a father of many nations (Gen. 17:5; Rom. 4:17). After such promises and such certainties, what meaning does carnal descent from Abraham have? According to the Holy Scripture, Isaac is considered as the seed or posterity, but only as the image of Jesus Christ. As opposed to Ishmael (the son of Hagar; Gen. 16:1ff), Isaac was born in the miraculous “freedom” of a sterile mother, in old age and against the laws of nature, similar to our Saviour, Who was miraculously born of a Virgin. He climbed the hill of Moriah just as Jesus climbed Calvary, bearing on His shoulders the wood of sacrifice. An angel delivered Isaac from death, just as an angel rolled away the stone to show us that the tomb was empty, that the Risen One was no longer there. At the hour of prayer, Isaac met Rebecca in the plain and led her into the tent of his mother Sarah, just as Jesus shall meet His Church on the clouds in order to bring Her into the heavenly mansions, the New Jerusalem, the much-desired homeland.

  No! We do not have the same God that non-Christians have! The sine qua non for knowing the Father, is the Son: He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me (John 14:6, 9). Our God is a God Incarnate, Whom we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have t
ouched (I John 1:1). The immaterial became material for our salvation, as St. John Damascene says, and He has revealed Himself in us. But when did He reveal Himself among the present-day Jews and Moslems, so that we might suppose that they know God? If they have a full understanding of God outside of Jesus Christ, then Christ was incarnate, died, and rose in vain!

  According to Christ’s words, they have not yet fully come to the Father. They have conceptions about the Father; but those conceptions do not contain the ultimate, supra-rational revelation of God given to mankind through Jesus Christ. For us Christians God is inconceivable, incomprehensible, indescribable, and immaterial, as St. Basil the Great says. For our salvation He became (to the extent that we are united to Him) conceived, described and material, by revelation in the Mystery of the Incarnation of His Son. To Him be the glory unto the ages of ages. Amen. And this is why St. Cyprian of Carthage affirms that he who does not have the Church for Mother, does not have God for Father!