An orthodox proposal
for transcending Fundamentalism
Amongst the various
conflicting situations observed in politics, religion seems to be one
that is purposely manipulated in support of personal, nationalist,
racist, international strategic and other interests. It is unfortunate
that religions quite often succumb to the unjustifiable designs of
international politics; indeed, a country’s entire political
perspective may be defined by and hinge from, a specific interpretation
of its religious truths.
This relationship between
Fundamentalism and politics becomes more apparent in the instances of
countries that have undergone the painful experience of European
colonization and the economic invasion of the West, and the necessary
confrontation of crucial problems (economic, social and those related to
identity) that appeared during post-colonial and contemporary times and
proved to be impediments in the progress and the developing of a
preferred political ideology which would express and embrace the
people’s every need, and would also contribute towards eliminating
polarity between people and history.
It is tragic, that from
within a combined fundamentalist-religious reality, which fervently
proclaims perseverance and adherence to traditional forms,
Fundamentalists have shown no hesitation in adopting actions and methods
(political, economic, organizational) borrowed from the “enemy”
camp, with the intent to cultivate fanaticism, intolerance, rivalry; to
commandeer and obliterate the human persona, and to limit religious
freedom.
One of the most
significant challenges would therefore be the transcendence of
Fundamentalism. The attempt to transcend Fundamentalism must be
multilateral. The negative consequences of all actions and omissions of
the past (voluntary or not), must be acknowledged as the starting point
towards a sincere disposition for self-criticism, understanding and
inter-acquaintance.
We need to take into
serious consideration the fact that Fundamentalists essentially refuse
to participate in any attempt to subdue the phenomenon; they manipulate
institutional levers of governing powers, or are themselves manipulated
by them, thus dividing Religions and Churches; they raise opposition;
they lead to extremes and aggression; they confuse and relate faith and
its expressions; they eradicate tradition, and worst of all, they
subjugate freedom of conscience, ultimately demolishing human dignity.
Fundamentalism may be known for its justified causes and its morality,
but not as an actual entity.
Utilization of logic may
initially be useful in extracting the morbid elements that make
communication difficult between people of differing beliefs.
Nevertheless, the only way to achieve this is through dialogue, through
mutual closeness, through the show of understanding between religions
and people; this will ensure prospects for cooperation, peaceful
co-existence and joint witnessing of mankind´s anxious petitions
and quests (freedom, justice, solidarity, etc). Imperative prerequisites
for this dialogue are the mutual acknowledgement of equality, the right
to individuality as defined by one´s religious, cultural and
ethnic traditions, mutual respect, sincere participation and a
disposition for peaceful co-existence.
Unfortunately, despite
their attempts for sincere relations based on familiarity and respect,
the relations between Christian Churches seem to be going through a
crisis. There is an intensity in ecumenical relations, which is
attributed not only to increasing demands, but also to indications of a
surfacing Fundamentalism. This calls for a constant pursuit and maturing
of theological dialogue. Churches are called upon, to work with honesty
and sincerity, in order to overcome political or para-political
situations and the proselytizing tendencies of nationalist racism.
“Universality” does not abolish the identity of peoples; it
preserves it; familiarization does not lead to a blending of religions -
it leads to respect, and to a pluralism for which there must be a
measure of appreciation and evaluation.
For the encouragement of
dialogue and any other means for the transcendence of Fundamentalism,
government politics can also play an important part, by purposely
allowing and recognizing in every religious community the right to live
according to its own traditions, with due respect towards fellow
citizens and the prevailing laws of the land. In view of the above, the
State would be obliged to actively protect the individual’s right for
freedom of religious conscience, within the context of religious
tolerance, which is assuredly a universal vision.
We are aware that in the
history of peoples, relations between religion and politics cannot be
avoided, however, Churches and other religious bodies (the interested
parties), should be very clear about their relations with the State and
Politics; they should re-define these relations or re-evaluate them.
Religions should never be subordinate to political aims and
expediencies, neither should they resort to any institutional-political
intervention, in order to unjustifiably and violently impose their faith
on others; perhaps a common positioning and a joint draft of religious
leaders, in which they could outline their common principles and
framework, would comprise a significant step in this direction.
As for the dialogue
between Orthodoxy and Islam, it is our belief that – despite the many
points of deviation – the Orthodox Church’s desire is for a peaceful
co-existence with the Islamic world, this being attributed to common
historical experiences. Their dialogue would basically focus on issues
pertaining to basic human rights common to all people. Any show of
alienation from Islam by the European peoples and Churches would prepare
the breeding ground for Fundamentalism, which would – amongst other
phenomena – not only discourage every endeavor for pacifying the
parties involved, but would exacerbate any existing opposition and
inevitably breed hostility.
To Orthodoxy,
“universality” is not a terrestrial term: it is seen as the
dissolution of all human barriers within the New Creation, in the
Kingdom of God. God, who becomes incarnate, suffers and is resurrected
for the salvation of all mankind, invites us to converse, not in order
to revoke or ignore, but in order to transcend the phenomenon of
Fundamentalism. Sadly, Orthodoxy’s “universality” scares the
feeble conscience of Fundamentalists, who cannot interpret the signs of
the times, despite the world-shaking evidence around us; neither can
they see that the only antidote for the current crisis is not within
Fundamentalism and its pathological expressions, but in
“universality” and dialogue. Our Church’s eucharist proposal has
Christ to offer: Christ the Lord was incarnated, thus embracing all of
mankind; therefore to participate in the Crucifixion and the
Resurrection reflects in essence the act of transcendence of
Fundamentalism. Finally, if our adherence to traditions does not cease
being a self-justifying reminiscence of the past, and if tradition
itself does not become the vessel of prophetic charisma, to shed its
eschatological lights of the future onto the present, then tradition
will simply be copying elements of the past in a defunct spirit, and our
heart will lose the ability to shape the image of God and the image of
man (which is exactly what happens in tactile Fundamentalism) and
converse with them. This may well be considered Christian Europe’s
greatest responsibility.
