Pistisism and the Gospels

N.T. Wright argues rather persuasively in his What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1997) that the Apostle to the Gentiles was not the ambitious and creative "founder" of Christianity, eclipsing and misinterpreting what Jesus had originally intended to be little more than vague moral guidelines. Rather, Paul was more so a faithful "herald of the king," bearing a message in remarkable continuity with the Jesus tradition.

Well, the light of truth continues to shine upon me as it now seems quite clear that Paul's great teaching of "Justification by Faith Over Christ" was not created by Paul out of thin air, but was rather a teaching Jesus Himself seems to have taught; recorded for us in the theologies of the canonical Gospels.

As we learn from Paul, "Faith" (pistis) is not an attribute or an activity "of" people, but (like Sin) is a cosmic, elemental, transpersonal force. Except unlike Sin and Death, it establishes humanity in the proper covenant relationship with God. In the Gospels, when faith is mentioned, we see that Jesus' relationship to it is radically different from what we normally hear.

The agency of miraculous saving acts is actually attributed to Faith, not Jesus:

Matt 9:22: But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy FAITH hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

This same pattern occurs in Matthew 9:29 and 15:28, Mark 5:34, 10:52, Luke 7:9-10, 7:50, 8:48, 17:19, 18:48. Mark 2:5 (Luke 5:20) reads:

When Jesus saw their FAITH, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

As is clear from this passage and its parallels, the only thing that Christ "does" is see that Faith is already healing the sick man. He is just a remarkably observant guy, and his amazing sensitivity to the mysterious saving action of Faith is often mistaken as a sign that he is the agent. However the message of the Gospel is clearly different: Jesus is simply more aware than everyone else of what's really going on, and his attempts to point this out seem constantly to end in misunderstanding. Scholars have been scratching their unkempt heads for decades and decades about Mark's motif of the "Messianic Secret": why is it that Jesus seems to discourage people from proclaiming him as Messiah? NOW it is all so clear!!!

Jesus is more like a really good spectator than an athlete: he is most often described as "seeing" faith, not causing it or doing things because of it. Note the passages in which he is said to either "find" or "not find" Faith:

Matthew 8:10: When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

See also Luke 18:8.

One might notice that it sure seems as though Jesus is ascribing agency to Faith, but specifically to the individual's faith: "your faith has made you whole." This would seem to imply that faith is, after all, a kind of quality or action "of" individual people. However, as in Paul's letters, the truth is revealed when we realize that the evangelists did not use the pronoun sou ("your") here as a Possessive Genitive, but rather as a Genitive of Subordination! Hence, the REAL translation of a passage like Luke 18:42 (and its parallels) reads:

And Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight; Faith OVER/HAVING DOMINION OVER YOU has made you well."

Salvation is a result of the cosmic power of Faith man-handling the believer into slave-like submission, dominating the sin out of him or her. The 1st century Judeo-Christian world was all about apocalyptic cosmic struggle, and here it is evident that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet: attempting to unveil to the world the saving action of Faith, even Faith over him.

Pax Christi,

The Sun of Righteousness

Just as when these clouds surround the sun, instead of blocking it out, add to its beauty, so when the clouds of sin surround the Sun of Righteousness at Calvalry, His glory is made even more manifest. All things work for the greater glory of God!

Oriental Orthodox in Ecumenical Dialogue 4

IV Some Final Reflections and Questions

Despite all the praiseworthy advancements that the Oriental Orthodox have made in their dialogues with the Eastern Orthodox and the West, there are still considerable problems and obstacles that need to be addressed. Early in the 1990s it looked like the Oriental Orthodox would achieve communion with the Eastern Orthodox churches. The plans were in place so that both sides would mutually lift the anathemas which divided them, and then they would have an official celebration of communion together by leaders of the churches. However, that has not yet occurred. In 2001 the Coptic and Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria, having noticed that restoration for communion had not been achieved, found that they therefore needed to address practical pastoral issues, the chief of which was the issue of mixed marriages by those within each other’s churches.[1]

It has also been revealed that unity will require more than a top-down approach to communion. It will require more than just official dialogues and agreements between the leaders of the churches: it will require the acceptance and understanding by the laity of the different church communities. Efforts have been made to help bring this about, for example, in 2002, the Middle East Council of Churches decided that there is the need “...for the publication in local languages of three Christological agreements signed by the two families of Churches [Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, note mine]...”[2] While the union of the Oriental Orthodox with the Eastern Orthodox churches remains a much more likely possibility than with the West, this kind of activity is also needed within the Oriental Orthodox-Western Church dialogues in order to help solidify the advances which have already been made.

On the other hand, one can look at these pauses and begin to wonder how successful these dialogues will actually turn out to be in hindsight. Looking at historical examples, one can find many failed or short-lasting attempts at unity. Even in the time of St. Cyril of Alexandria, one can note that St. Cyril made an agreement with John of Antioch that looks reminiscent of the theological dialogues of our day. We can see that it was not soon after the death of St. Cyril, however, that controversy once again arose, with the result of the split at Chalcedon. As such, dialogue can be fruitful, but there is the need to make sure that the bonds of unity are stronger this time, so that it does not end up yet another historical example of where good will alone does not help keep a reunited Church.

Another question that needs to be addressed is whether or not the new definitions and agreed statements will be found to be acceptable by both sides. Once again, history provides us clear warnings of what can happen, when definitions are made, accepted, and then, when re-examined, are found insufficient theological strength to hold the union together. Probably the greatest example of this was the development of monothelite theology in the seventh century. By stating that Christ only had one “will” and one “energy,” the Byzantine Emperor and Patriarch thought that this would appease the Oriental Orthodox, which in fact it did. But it was only a short-lived reunion with the Armenians and Coptics, and some could even suggest because it was only made by a Christological word-play.[3] We must also remember it has not been merely theological problems that have to be addressed. While the Christological issue is central, we must see that the real problems behind the original schism must not be overlooked or forgotten. It is easy to see how different Christological positions often talk around each other, without recognizing the unique understanding each of the members in the dialogue possess. When an agreed Christological statement is made, it must be asked: do both sides actually understand that statement with the same intention? What is being done to make sure both sides do so? Have we truly learned from our mistakes as to the significance of culture in how it shapes our own understanding of the words said in agreement, so that it might look like there is an agreement that has been made, but we will find out, in time, as with before, that the true disagreement still remains?

Yet, we must take the positive action between the churches as a good sign. Peter Bouteneff asked, “Do we really want unity, with all the joys and also the challenges and strains that arise from an increased diversity?”[4] All indications say the answer is yes. We live in a time and an age which will work harder to make sure unity can be achieved and sustained. We can look at the Christological debates of history with hindsight; we can look at the disputes, and better understand their root causes, and work to overcome them. But, I think the question of whether we want this unity will be answered by the kind of struggle we make to create it and keep it. Instead of creating a simplified theological statement that can be ambiguously interpreted by different sides we should continue to work and confront the true social-linguistic confusions that remain. Even if the theologians and leaders of the churches can understand the theological agreements which have been made, this understanding needs to be better explained to others, especially to those who fear the ecumenical movement.[5] Those who fear a “false union” need to be shown that they really have nothing to fear, otherwise, if they are not convinced, it is quite possible they will work from within the churches to prevent the desired unity. In the end, we must ask, will good will prevail and allow the churches to be united in love, or will division continue to rule by the dictates of fear?

Footnotes
[1]Petros VII and Shenouda III, “Pastoral Agreement” (2001).
[2] Middle East Council of Churches, “Oriental Orthodox Patriarchs to Build Grass-roots Support for Inter-Orthodox Rapprochement,” MECC News Report, vol. 14, no. 1 (Summer 2002). Journal on-line. Available online http://www.mecchurches.org/newsreport/vol14_1/orthodox.asp. Accessed September 8, 2003.
[3] John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 36-7.
[4] Peter Bouteneff, 166.
[5] As an example to the concerns of many of the Orthodox for “false union,” see the introduction to Ivan N. Ostroumoff, The History of the Council of Florence. trans. Basil Popoff (Boston: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1971). According to the introduction, the Council of Florence should be mentioned whenever talk of ecumenical union is underway – because it represents the fear that councils and reunions forced upon the churches from them can be false unions abandoning the “true faith.” Often those who look to the ecumenical movement with distaste within the different churches do so out of such fears (the fear of accepting heresy), and they use such historical examples to encourage others to follow them in this fear.

A Whole New Heresy

In New Testament studies here at Duke, Richard Hays carries a lot of clout. Hays struck academic gold with his thesis that the forms of "Pistis Christou" as found in Galatians should be translated as subjective genitives rather than objective genitives: the "faith of Christ" rather than "faith in Christ." This, of course, has theological implications for the doctrine of justification, and NT scholars have been fighting over whether the pieces fit the puzzle ever since. Intro classes here make sure to instill a sense of the eminent intelligibility of the thesis. So far, I find it convincing...

But not THAT convincing. In fact, a (very) brief glance at my Greek syntax book has opened my eyes to the real truth of the phrase. I plan to make my millions with a new trailblazing thesis that unveils what Paul REALLY meant by that phrase.

As it turns out, Hays was only partially correct. Paul was actually using a subset of the subjective genitive known as the Genitive of Subordination. It specifies that which is subordinated to or under the dominion of the head noun, and is characteristically used with nouns that lexically imply rule or authority. Well I says: faith certainly implies authority! If it is to be both the foundational principle of doctrine and of our life in the Spirit, then it sure as hell seems pretty authoritative to me!

Consequently, Paul's phrase doesn't read "faith in Christ" or even "faith of Christ," but rather "faith OVER Christ." Faith actually rules over and dominates Jesus in the scheme of justification. Paul's gospel is truly revolutionary: it prioritizes faith to such a degree that Jesus Christ is actually subject like a servant to faith! Faith, not Jesus, fills the shoes of Death and those other elemental powers that rule over the cosmos. Paul's supposed disagreement with the "Judaizers" is actually a red-herring. He agrees completely with them that Christ Jesus is definitely not the source of justification; its just that faith is way better than the Law at being better than Jesus.

Believing in Christ actually leads to faith taking its proper place over and above Christ: Galatians 2:16 thus reads:

"nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith OVER/HAVING DOMINION OVER Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith OVER/HAVING DOMINION OVER Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.

Eat your heart out, works-righteousness! I figured this brand of heresy would be called "Fideism," but sadly that name was taken. Maybe "Pistisism."

So while you're all collecting the wood to burn me at the stake, I'll be burning in the scholarly spotlight with a wave of career-making new publications.

Cracking Open the Nutshell

Brendan has raised some thought-provoking questions in response to my attempt to present- in a nutshell- what's at stake in the analogia entis. With a teaching this complex, doesn't any bare-bones presentation risk giving birth to a legion of mistaken reductions; allowing the "monsters of concision" to feed on precisely what is left unsaid, or perhaps on what is said without adequate explanation?

In truth, I think the issue of the analogia entis cannot be presented in a nutshell without being in danger of countless reductive conclusions. In my opinion this is the case because 1) analogy is one of the most complex and most fundamental around; and 2) because the univocal mind always has a certain seductive power over us, such that seeing things through a univocal lens will always be a strong temptation. In light of all this, it seems far more likely that any simple explanation of the issue demands a certain back-and-forth and supplementation, progressively sharpening our understanding of it with a certain dialectic. Without this, the way we use language of being will always be heard improperly, and thus nothing will really be said. It's something like a theoretical pendulum, always in need of a push back in the other direction until it finally balances out. In short, it demands that the nutshell be cracked open.

As it turns out, the discussion of whether being is adequate to God or to creatures (in the way I laid it out) presupposes quite a bit about how the terms under discussion are being conceived. Lacking these presuppositions, the dichotomy between God and creatures (as it were, fighting over being) tends to cloud the fact that here we should not, and, I think, ultimately cannot, use the language of being as if we had a definition of it. In other words, it clouds the fact that being is intrinsically analogical (really and notionally).

We might approach the issue, as so many thinkers have, by assuming that being is primarily what marks the difference between us and God: being is proper to God and therefore it cannot be proper to us (resulting in the devaluing of our finite substantiality); or being is proper to us and therefore God must be thought "without" being (ultimately threatening to obscure the relationship between God and creation). Scylla meets Charybdis, and both sides attempt to uphold their primary emphases while figuring ways around their potential flaws. However, the more foundational problem is that such a dichotomy already concedes ground to a univocal vision of being: as if here "being" were functioning like a universally common concept, a "quasi-essence," a grand category, a pure "quality" or the "greatest common denominator" of things, etc. The dynamics of being here are those of genus.

However, a fundamental aspect of metaphysics for Aristotle and Aquinas is the denial that being is a genus. Simply put, differentiating things that fall under the same genus requires the addition of a principle that is external to the genus (specific difference). But here we run into a metaphysical wall: the notion of "extrinsic principle" does not adequately map onto the notion of being, precisely because the only "thing" that can be extrinsic to being is nothing. But, as is obvious, "nothing" can't function as a separate, differentiating principle, thrown into the mix with being (because IT'S NOTHING!). Therefore the kind of differences relevant to the discussion of ontology cannot be thought "outside of" the notion of being, but must rather be intrinsic to it; they must be differences OF being. The unity of being is not like that of an abstract, univocal genus, but is inherently a unity-in-difference.

The denial that being is a genus, and the realization that it is intrinsically plurivocal, completely reorients how we use our ontological language. In this context, with this understanding of being, we can say things like "being is proper to both God and creatures," without presuming that we are talking about some quality they both share, or some generic category they are both lumped under (onto-theology). What our vision implies is not that univocity leads to one speaking too much about the difference between God and creatures; rather, it fails entirely to speak it at all. With a generic conception, if we attribute being to God, any space between equality and nothing disappears, and thus all difference is ultimately conceived nihilistically. Vice-versa, if man claims being as his domain, God can only be an abyss of nothing, and any space of relation to Him vanishes: we then have a kind of nihilistic god-talk, and seemingly Nietzsche's vindication.

Further, analogy is not the attempt to overcome difference, but precisely to speak that difference at all. Analogy is the only real form that the difference takes. Being is not generic, but transgeneric. And when we speak about transgeneric realities (also good, wisdom, life, etc.) as "common" to both God and creatures, an idolatrous equation is actually not implied in our utterance. This means that when we speak about God as the "only reality that fills-out what we mean by 'being'," we are not implicitly denying the being of creatures. In this context, the ways of expressing the difference between God and creatures (uncreated and created, pure act and limited act, simple and composite, Esse Ipsum Subsistens and entia, etc.) really do all the work that so many other thinkers want the language of “being” and “non-being” to do. In fact, they do so far more adequately by avoiding the extremes of obscuring the relationship between God and creatures.

Because of being's transgeneric, non-univocal character, statements like "God has a monopoly on being" don't make a whole lot of sense; being is not the kind of thing one could have a monopoly on (given the fact that there are more than one thing in the world). But if we do say such a thing in this metaphysical context, we are actually pointing toward that which most fully embodies being. Within analogy, claims of monopoly refer to the primal instance, the point of "focal meaning" which provides the intrinsic unity that holds between all the various instances of things that are. For instance, in the order of action, substance is more adequately called "being" than accident is, because accident only "is" derivatively of substance. Likewise, in the order of being (esse), the most adequate is that which exists through itself alone, in an entirely unlimited, unqualified manner: that which just....plain....IS...(God). Composite beings (creatures, by definition) only exist derivatively, dependent upon that which IS unconditionally. Thus the unity subsisting between all the different things that we call "being" derives from the fact that all are ordered to the most fundamental and primary "instance" of being: God. And only in this way, does my former talk about God as the only one "worthy" to be called "Being" have any meaning.

That is a little more of what I think is at stake in the analogy of being....in (or out) of a nutshell.

Pax Christi,

Do you know who it is?

"He recognizes a natural and inexpungable metaphysical exigence to think beyond, to think the ultimate, even if we are denied "legitimated" theoretical knowing of its nature and being. Recall, for instance, his distinction between a "boundary" and a "limit." In our search for univocal knowing, there springs up an equivocal longing for what epistemically is denied to us. I see him bordering on a supreme tension: committed to respect what he saw as the limit, and yet impelled to think at the boundary of the limit, and indeed beyond; pulled on the one side back with the limit, driven out from finitude on the other side, but driven out without the relatively secure univocities of the former.

He is between finitude and infinity, though he often masks that intermediacy in a manner more intent on securing coherent univocity within the between, and letting the equivocal darkness beyond take care of itself. In truth, however, these two sides cannot be kept from each other in an uncontaminated purity."

Who is this person?

Oriental Orthodox in Ecumenical Dialogue 3

III-2 Agreed Statements, East and West

The Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches have had four official dialogues. They were at Chambesy, Switzerland in 1985; the Anaba Bishoi Monastery in Egypt in 1989; and then two in Chambesy during 1990 and 1993. These dialogues and the official pronouncements made at them reflect upon and develop further the agreements made at the unofficial meetings. At the meeting in 1985, five different commonly held misunderstandings were engaged, because they were the basis by which members of both churches dealt with each other. The most important ones were Christological: that Dioscorus had been condemned by Chalcedon and that Chalcedon had repudiated the teachings of St Cyril of Alexandria.[1]

The meeting in 1989 was monumental because an official Christological declaration had been made at it. Their agreement states that both traditions have held to the one true apostolic faith: “We have inherited from our fathers in Christ the one apostolic tradition, though as churches we have been separated from each other for centuries.”[2] As to Christology, they said that both share a belief in the Logos who is consubstantial with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, and that in the incarnation, the Logos had become human and consubstantial with us.[3] As to the hypostasis or person being discussed, “When we speak of one composite (synthetos) hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, we do not say that in Him a divine hypostasis and a human hypostasis came together.”[4] The union is real, but the different natures must not be confused, mingled, or seen to be changed by the process of the incarnation.[5] It was suggested that this agreement could be used by both traditions, so that both could use different terminology to explain the one truth they share in common: “Those among us who speak of two natures in Christ do not thereby deny their inseparable, indivisible union; those among us who speak of one united divine-human nature in Christ do not thereby deny the continuing dynamic presence in Christ of the divine and human, without change or confusion.”[6]

After achieving a Christological definition at Bishoi, the remaining dialogues sought out to understand what this agreement meant in practicality. First it was seen that the anathemas and condemnations against each other should be lifted.[7] But this was not the only concern. For example, they had to determine how were they going to educate the laity about the meaning of their agreement. Moreover, they had to figure out the relationships between the churches, and what it meant, for example, to mixed-marriages. Last, and not least, was the question of full union – how would they go about it if doctrinal disputes were truly at an end? Two different methodologies were suggested, and both are still in the process of being examined: should they be united through a council or through local, bi-lateral dialogues that result in different churches being integrated together?[8] Current discussions, as for example between the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria and the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, have been based more upon the latter model than the former.[9]

With the West, the Oriental Orthodox have had several bi-lateral dialogues between particular Oriental Churches and Rome. As with the Orthodox, there is a general inclination to see that there is no real basis for the Christological division. But it has, to date, been established primarily by bi-lateral declarations. For example, such a declaration between Pope John Paul II and Holy Holiness Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, Patriarch of Antioch and the head of the Syrian Orthodox Church stated, “Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad division and schism that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of the incarnation.”[10] Between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church there arose a small, simple statement of Christology in 1988. Representing the fruit of 17 years of dialogue, it reads:

We believe that our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, the Incarnate-Logos is perfect in His Divinity and perfect in His Humanity. He made His Humanity One with His Divinity without Mixture, nor Mingling, nor Confusion. His Divinity was not separated from His Humanity even for a moment or twinkling of an eye.

At the same time, we anathematize the Doctrines of both Nestorius and Eutyches.[11]

There are, to be sure, several differences in the dialogues between Rome and the Orthodox Churches by the non-Chalcedonians. Of course, this is to be expected, in part because they have far more concerns to work out between their traditions than the Eastern Orthodox have with the Oriental Orthodox, such as, for example, the question of the filioque.[12] There has been progress and the scope of the dialogue has changed, so that in January of 2003 there was a Preparatory Committee established to help create a Joint Commission between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches,[13] and the first meeting of that commission took place in January 2004.[14]

Interestingly enough, the Oriental Orthodox churches have also begun to engage in Christological dialogue with the Anglican and Reformed Churches.[15] Jeffrey Gros points out that although there has been substantial dialogue within the World Council of Churches between the World Alliance of Reformed churches and the Oriental Orthodox churches, it was in 1991 that we find the willingness to enter into bi-lateral dialogue between the two.[16] In 1994 this resulted in an agreed Christological statement, similar in kind and substance as with the ones with the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches. However, there are others issues they felt they need to address with these traditions, such as the role of Mary. Interestingly enough, they were able to come to an agreement where Mary was to be called Theotokos, “because God the Word became incarnate and was made human, and he very conception united to himself the temple taken from her.”[17] They also agreed to the need for four areas of theological dialogue, where it was believed they needed to clarify each other’s understanding: 1) concept of history and revelation, 2) ways to interpret scripture 3) how does history affect scriptural interpretation and 4) the question of canonical books in differing traditions.[18]

Footnotes
[1] Theodore Pulcini, 43.
[2] “Damascus Papandreou, “Communique of the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Anba Bishoy Monastery, Egypt, 20 – 24 June, 1989)” Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. 34, no.4 (Winter 1989), 394.
[3] Ibid., 395.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 396.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Theodore Pulcini, 44.
[8] John Meyendorff reflected upon both of these options. “The ideal solution would, of course, be the tenure of a joint Great Council, at which unity would be proclaimed and sealed in a joint Divine Liturgy. [...] The history of the Church has also known precedents for initiatives taken regionally. Indeed, some regional circumstances may, in fact, favor unions which cannot by initiated elsewhere.” John Meyenedorff, “Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians: The Last Steps to Unity” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, vol. 33, no.4 (1989), 327-8.
[9] See Patriarch Petros VII and Pope Shenouda III, “Official Statement of the Pastoral Agreement Between the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria” (2001). Available online http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state05.html. Accessed September 8, 2003.
[10] John Paul II and Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, “Common Declaration” chap. in Growth in Agreement II: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level 1982 – 1998. ed. by Jeffrey Gros, Harding Meyer, Wililam G. Rusch, Faith and Order Paper No. 187 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 691.
[11] Pope Shenouda III, The Nature of Christ. (Ottawa: N.p., 1985; Cairo: Dar El-Tabaa El Kawimia, 1991), 47.
[12]See, for example, the discussion on the filioque in the International Joint Coptic-Catholic Commission’s “Report of the International Joint Commission for Dialogue between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church” chap. in Growth in Agreement II: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level 1982 – 1998. ed. by Jeffrey Gros, Harding Meyer, Wililam G. Rusch, Faith and Order Paper No. 187 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 695.
[13] John Paul II, “Address of John Paul II To the Members of the Preparatory Committee Charged with Preparing the Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.” (January 28, 2003). Available on-line http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2003/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20030128_catholic-orthodox_en.html. Accessed September 8, 2003.
[14] Middle East Council of Churches, “Catholics, Oriental Orthodox Open Official Dialogue,” MECC News Report, vol.14, no.3-4 (Winter 2003). Journal on-line. Available online http://www.mecchurches.org/newsreport/vol14_34/dialogue.asp. Accessed September 9, 2003.
[15] The Anglican-Oriental Orthodox International Commission’s Agreed Statement on Christology was released in November 1992. An interesting section of it reads, “We agree that God the Word became incarnate by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, created human nature with its natural will and energy. The union of natures is natural, hypostatic, real and perfect. The natures are distinguished in our mind in thought alone. He who wills and acts is always the one hypostasis of the Logos incarnate with one personal will.” Joint Anglican-Orthodox International Commission, “Agreed Statement on Christology” (November 5 – 10, 2002), paragraph 7. Available online: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ecumenical/oriental/200211christology.html. Accessed September 21, 2003. With this, we can see how some other ways of reading the Christological issue have been resolved: the distinctions in Christ are logical (mental) constructions, and not real.
[16] Jeffrey Gros, “Reformed-Oriental Orthodox Dialogue: Historical Introduction” chap. in Growth in Agreement II: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level 1982 – 1998. ed. by Jeffrey Gros, Harding Meyer, Wililam G. Rusch, Faith and Order Paper No. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 291.
[17] “Agreed Statement on Christology,” (September 13, 1994) chap. in Growth in Agreement II: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level 1982 – 1998. ed. by Jeffrey Gros, Harding Meyer, Wililam G. Rusch, Faith and Order Paper No. 187 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 292.
[18] Ibid., 293.

Oriental Orthodox in Ecumenical Dialogues 2

III-1 Return to Dialogue: The Initial Contact Between the Oriental Orthodox Churches with the East and West In the Modern Era

Much has changed since the early ecumenical dialogues the Chalcedonians had with the non-Chalcedonians. In politics, the direct influence of Christianity has tremendously diminished. We can see that in our present age, as the Coptic Orthodox priest Fr. Tadros Malaty puts it, “...every church deeply desires Church unity on an ecumenical level.”[1] Many new factors have led to such a change. It is no longer fear of Islam which creates a need for churches to be united. It is the embarrassment of a divided Christianity in the wake of a secular world which makes Christians pause and think something needs to be done. And now we have new ways to engage dialogue; we have been given new hermeneutical tools which can be used to uncover what each side of the dialogue has been trying to say, and not just get bogged down by the same miscommunication that has happened before.

If we want to see what has been going on in recent times between the Oriental Orthodox Churches with Chalcedonian Churches, it’s best to go back to 1951, because that year celebrated the1500th anniversary of the Council of Chalcedon. In that year, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras, wrote an encyclical that called for a dialogue between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches. What Patriarch Athenagoras said within it is quite interesting and relevant: even though the Oriental Orthodox churches do not use the same terminology as the Council of Chalcedon, they are to be seen as perfectly orthodox in their Christology.[2]

Although Patriarch Athenagoras called for dialogue in 1951, it took over a decade for it to materialize. It was at the Pan-Orthodox meeting at Rhodes in 1961 when both sides finally agreed to start such a dialogue. A representative was chosen by both sides to work together, and find the place and means whereby that dialogue could begin.[3] In the next several years, there were four unofficial meetings between the Oriental Orthodox and Orthodox Churches: at Aarhus, Denmark in 1964; Bristol, England in 1967; Geneva, Switzerland in 1970 and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 1971.[4] At these meetings, several points were made that would find themselves restated in the much later official dialogues. The statement made Aarhus shows us the roots of the Christological agreement which would take place between the Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. In it, it states:

On the essence of the Christological dogma we found ourselves in full agreement. Through the different terminologies used by each side, we saw the same truth expressed. Since we agree in rejecting without reservation the teaching of Eutyches as well as Nestorius, the acceptance of non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon does not entail the acceptance of either heresy. Both sides found themselves fundamentally following the Christological teaching of the one undivided Church as expressed by St. Cyril.[5]

The theological writings of St. Cyril of Alexandria became a link which united the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches. Both sides were able to see each other as being faithful to his teachings, even if they did not portray it in the same way. They begun to understand that the intentions behind historical Christological definitions, and not just the letter of those definitions, needed to be grasped and used. For it was quite apparent that what each side understood as the meaning behind those definitions were not the same: their conflict and confusion rested in how each side had a different technical meaning for the words used in the definitions. Peter Bouteneff provides an ample demonstration of this by looking at Armenian theology, and how even within the Armenian church itself there are different understandings as to the meaning of important terms like hypostasis and prosopon (person):

A clear example of the different uses of the terms hypostasis and prosopon can be found in the Christologies of certain Armenian theologians, who teach that because it is impossible that there be a nature without a hypostasis, one cannot say that the Logos assumed human nature alone from the Virgin Mary, but a human hypostasis and prosopon. To Chalcedonian ears, at any rate, this sounds not like monophysitism but Nestorianism![6]

If it can be difficult within the same cultural background for people to have the same understanding about key terms, then it is obvious how difficult it would be to portray this in dialogues that go beyond the domains of a single culture. It is because of this that the theologians recognized that what was needed was to look at what each side was actually trying to say about Christ beyond the words they were using. When they did so, they came to the conclusion that they shared the same Christological heritage.

At Bristol, the agreement from Aarhus had not simply been restated. The meeting sought to go deeper into their Christological examination. It provided a clear statement as to the common agreement between the churches: both sides recognized in Christ there was a union of the two natures where they were united without change or confusion and yet unable to be separated or divided from each other after the incarnation.[7] At Geneva, coming into the meeting with this common understanding of Christ, the questions went beyond the Christological and into more practical concerns: can there be re-union between the churches if both sides do not agree upon the authority of the same number of Ecumenical Councils; what should be done about the saints that each side possessed who had been anathematized by the other (should they all be recognized as saints, and if so, how since one side would see the others’ saints as condemned?); lastly, since the churches often had jurisdictions in the same region, and it was seen as improper that more than one bishop should have jurisdiction in the same area, how would this jurisdictional problem be resolved if intercommunion was established.[8] The fourth conference at Addis Ababa reiterated a difficulty that had to be resolved about the saints: could the churches lift anathemas that condemned each others saints, and if so, how, since many of those anathemas came from the highest level of authority accepted by each respective church (such as an ecumenical council)? Would an ecumenical council itself be the only authority by which those anathemas could be lifted? It was also agreed by the end of this fourth meeting that something more official should be set up between the churches, and that the unofficial meetings had done as much as they could do on their own.[9]

In the 1970s, while there were occasional consultations between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, those official dialogues did not take place. But it was during this decade that improved relations between the West and the Oriental Orthodox began to take place. First, there were four unofficial ecumenical meetings between the Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches at the Pro Oriente Ecumenical Institute in Vienna during 1971, 1973, 1976, and 1978.[10] Secondly, several bi-lateral dialogues between the Catholic church and individual Oriental Orthodox churches had taken place, and some ended with a common declaration between the two. In Ut Unum Sint, Pope John Paul II reflected upon these dialogues and what he saw as to their success: “And precisely in relation to Christology, we have been able to join the Patriarchs of some of these Churches in declaring our common faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Pope Paul VI of venerable memory signed declarations to this effect with His Holiness Shenouda III, the Coptic Orthodox Pope and Patriarch, and His Beatitude Jacoub III, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.”[11]

Following the theological investigations, unofficial meetings, and official declarations that had been made in the 1960s and 1970s, the next two decades provided even more indications that the problems the Oriental Orthodox has had with Chalcedonian churches are either near or at an end. Huge strides have been made, although, it must be noted, not without some questions which still need to be addressed, and we will look at a few of them later.

Footnotes

[1] Tadros Malaty, Introduction to the Coptic Orthodox Church. (Alexandria: N.p., 1993), 290.
[2] Thomas Fitzgerald, “Toward the Reestablishment of Full Communion: The Orthodox-Oriental Dialogue” The Greek Orthodox Review, vol. 36, no. 2 (1991), 171.
[3] The Orthodox representative was Nikos Nissiotis and the Oriental Orthodox representative was Paul Verghese of the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church. See Theodore Pulcini, “Recent Strides Towards Reunion of the Eastern and Oriental Churches: Healing the Chalcedonian Breach” Journal of Ecumenical Studies, vol. 30, no.1 (Winter 1993), 37-8.
[4] Thomas Fitzgerald, 172.
[5] Agreed Statement (August 14, 1964), The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. 10, no.2 (1964-5), 14.
[6] Peter Bouteneff, “Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians: Realizing Unity” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, vol. 42, no.2 (1998), 156 –7.
[7] Theodore Pulcini, 40.
[8] Ibid., 41.
[9] “Fourth Unofficial Consultation Between Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Theologians, Addis Ababa, January 22-23, 1971” Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. 16, no.1-2(1971), 213.
[10] Damaskinos Papandreou, “Oriental Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogue: Historical Introduction” chap. in Growth in Agreement II: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level 1982 – 1998. ed. by Jeffrey Gros, Harding Meyer, Wililam G. Rusch, Faith and Order Paper No. 187(Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 688.
[11] Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, paragraph 62.