It is very common in theological and, more broadly, ecclesiastical circles to talk about Orthodoxy as not being a religion but an ekklesia, meaning in practice, a way of life. To be honest, this “way of life” discourse is something we find in all world religions, so when the Orthodox say this sort of thing they virtually say nothing or, to phrase it a bit differently, simply transpose the self-determination problem – from religion to a new, seemingly alternative definition of hierophanic (that is, related to the Sacred) significance. But the problem remains: Is Orthodoxy a religion? Can it be conceived in non-religious (as broadly understood as possible) terms?
In the first half of the 20th century, it was the German theologian and confessor Dietrich Bonhoeffer who spoke more conspicuously than anyone else about religion-less Christianity. He had in mind both the integrity of Christianity and its prospects of functioning in the future. For him, in this respect, Christianity was the “religion” best equipped to function in a non-religious or meta-religious world. But why? Does this understanding reflect things themselves or is it just an ideological pre-conception? Is religion simply a human creation that stands over against Divine Revelation, as the latter is experienced in the ekklesia, and thus something that we can dispense with?
“Yes” and “No” to Religion
To be sure, religion is indeed a human creation, but at the same time it isn’t; it’s also a drive, an urge, an inclination and disposition. It is something humans do, in the sense that they have to do it. This entails that, in one way or another, religion is a formal quality of the human condition – even when it is denied; especially when it is denied! However, the fact that religion is necessary within the relationship between the Sacred and humanity does not mean that it is also the only or even the most important aspect of this relationship. There is something that functions prior, through and beyond religion, and it is this that we call a hierophany in religious studies. We find it in all religions – with or without inverted commas – and not specifically in Orthodoxy. In this sense, it forms the basis of religion – and of Orthodoxy, of course!
So, even if one were to concede that Orthodoxy is not a religion – as much as Islam isn’t, for that matter – this still doesn’t mean that Orthodoxy would escape the condition of being a hierophanic lifeworld. The main point I want to stress here is that as a hierophanic order Orthodoxy can be as religious as it chooses to be, that is, more religious or less religious, and it can engage with other religions as much as possible or required. In other words, what makes Orthodoxy Orthodoxy is not its religious aspects, but its hierophanic character – it is there that one should look for its uniqueness, distinctiveness and irreducibility.
The big difference between Orthodoxy and other “religious” lifeworlds regarding the aforementioned remarks is that the former – along with other Christian traditions, of course – has the capacity, so to speak, to relate with the secular or the non-religious in ways that are liberating for itself. I am referring to the core of Orthodoxy or what we could call radical Orthodoxy, which thanks to its eschatological intentionality constitutes more a becoming than a being. In this sense, Orthodoxy as a predominantly religious past – with widespread fundamentalist obsessions – is by far something quite different from Orthodoxy as an all the more non-religious becoming, which is not and should not be afraid of the secular as such but should turn it into its prime sacroscape.
A Non-Religious and Pan-Religious Orthodoxy at the Same Time
Throughout history the Orthodox Church has fleshed out its presence thanks to the adoption and adaptation of variegated religious elements, becoming eventually the greatest, perhaps, laboratory and experiment in world syncretism. Nevertheless, this has not affected the integrity of Orthodoxy, namely, the meaning that it represents for everything that it encompasses and transforms for the ultimate purpose of its fulfilment. It is this meaning that started as something prior to religion and has remained such through religion, in order to show the way of faith beyond religion. It is this demand for faith beyond religion, faith within and through the secular, faith as radical as possible in its integrity, that Orthodoxy is called upon to embody in our time and age.
This can only be done, one would confidently say, by dumping all historically accumulated religion. This, though, is a rather superficial approach, for religion is a formal and necessary quality of the human condition. At the same time, if Orthodoxy would move in that direction, it would only achieve an unbearable break and discontinuity in its historical realisation. So, the way into a non-religious faith is different, and to be as frank as possible I believe – although this definitely sounds paradoxical – lies not in having less or no religion, but more and if possible, as much as possible. To put it in stark terms, religion-less Orthodox faith is to be pursued via a pan-religious Orthodox opening!
To be pan-religious amounts to be open to receive religious materials from all possible sources. If Orthodox theology truly espouses that religions are human creations, then it has nothing to be afraid of; it can incorporate anything from all around the global religious landscape. In doing so, Orthodoxy will simply be affirming its Christological transformation of the world in light of its eschatological commitment. Moreover, by saturating itself – if possible – with religion, it will prove that religion is not its main concern; not even a problem. By taking in all religions, by becoming everything to everyone (cf. 1 Cor 9:22), by being equally so Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, Indigenous, and whatever, Orthodoxy can only be more so what it has always intended to be: a faith prior, through and beyond religions that directs human yearning towards Jesus Christ as humanity’s ultimate fulfilment.
Orthodoxy can become more intrenched in its religious tradition; it can also abandon religion altogether; or it can fulfil the religious syncretism it has historically been realising by promoting as a counterbalance the religion-less faith that Jesus Christ requires from each one of us. I believe that the last option – precisely because it is most paradoxical – is the only one that befits the power and glory of God.
ABOUT | INSIGHTS INTO GLOBAL ORTHODOXY with Dr Vassilis Adrahtas
"Insights into Global Orthodoxy" is a fortnightly column that features opinion articles that on the one hand capture the pulse of global Orthodoxy from the perspective of local sensitivities, needs and/or limitations, and on the other hand delve into the local pragmatics and significance of Orthodoxy in light of global trends and prerogatives.
Dr Vassilis Adrahtas holds a PhD in Studies in Religion (USyd) and a PhD in the Sociology of Religion (Panteion). He has taught at several universities in Australia and overseas. Since 2015 he has been teaching ancient Greek Religion and Myth at the University of New South Wales and Islamic Studies at Western Sydney University. He has published ten books. He has extensive experience in the print media as editor-in-chief, and columnist, and for a while he worked as a radio producer. He lives in Sydney, Australia, his birthplace.
