Father Dumitru Staniloae

The great Romanian patristic scholar and dogmatic theologian, Father Dumitru Staniloae, who contributed so much to the neo-patristic and philocalic revival of Orthodox theology in the 20th century, could not avoid – mainly in the early phase of his work but not only in this – the theological idealization and exaltation of the Romanian patriotism and greatness, of agrarian and patriarchal society, while his anti-Semitic references in his early writings as well as his laudatory comments on the persecution of Jews in pro-Nazi Romania and even on the “important work” done by Hitler himself are indeed shocking. In the words of this Romanian theologian: “All countries should understand that it is in their own interest and in the interest of world peace not to transform themselves into instruments of International Jewry but to begin by mutual agreements to clear the air of a germ that fosters continuous strife between peoples.”³⁶

Furthermore Father Staniloae believes not only that the human person cannot exist outside of the nation in which he/she was born and raised but also that he/she cannot be saved without it: “The individual is saved at the same time as the nation. Nations are undiminished entities. They are the last specific units of humanity. From them the individual emerges and lives through them.” For this Romanian theologian, the church is the basic component of the nation and vice versa. Romanianism is synonymous with Orthodoxy and vice versa.³⁷

The struggle for the increase of the nation along the lines of Christian virtues is nothing but the struggle for the glorification of God in the creation. And when we emphasize the Orthodox element in the Romanian character, we show one more reason for the necessity for our nation to continue to follow the Orthodox line, if it does not want to fall from Romanianism and, in general, from a superior situation to an inferior one. This would not only be a fall in the natural order but also a sin against God that would not remain unpunished.³⁸

All these elements created a nationalist rhetoric of self-admiration, especially since the Romanian people occupied a unique position between the West and the East and witnessed to a distinctive ability to creatively combine characteristics from both cultures.

In our spirituality, we unite Latin lucidity or confidence in the rational understanding of reality typical of the West with the sense of the inscrutable mystery of existence typical of the peoples of Eastern Europe. But, as Latins, we bring to the mystery of things and people a light that is stronger than that of the Slavic peoples, a light that does not limit but defines and is proper to the peoples of the West.

And Stalinoae concludes that, because of the above features, the Romanian people have the most refined spirituality in the world: “In this respect we are closer to primal Christian spirituality that is still present in the spirituality of the Greek people, although with a lesser sentimental experience of this light than in Romanian spirituality.”³⁹

Furthermore, what is considered to be a deadly sin for the person, such as pride, automatically turns into virtue if it refers to the national community, as Berdiaev had observed.⁴⁰ Driven by his personal beliefs but also to explain and justify the extreme nationalism of his time⁴¹ (most of the Romanian intellectuals in the 1930s belonged to or were sympathetic to the ultra-nationalistic, fascist, anti-Semitic, and pro-Nazi movement of the Iron Guard or the Legion of the Archangel Michael),⁴² Staniloae understood the nation as a spiritual entity, through which humans can be saved. He believed in fact that humans are saved only through their national community and not individually: “Man exists only in a national form, with a national coloration. […] It is not possible to extract the defining individual or national characteristics from an individual or a nation and leave the pure human element behind. To do so would mean the very destruction of the human element.”⁴³

Staniloae’s political theology seeks to defend the absolute identification between the national and the ecclesial:

And the thread that runs through the essence of a nation’s history, that keeps it true to its very being, is its tradition, whatever is essential, good and characteristic. And the first institution that represents the continuity of tradition in the life of a nation is the Church. In the present practices and beliefs of the Church, we find again the very content of the soul life of our nation from each of the previous centuries.⁴⁴

By no means does he relativize or question the ethnocultural bond. On the contrary, by taking this bond as a given, he ascribes an eschatological dimension and ontological substance to it. Nation and ethnicity are not viewed as stages of the fallen human condition but as manifestations of the divine will, possibly even a prelapsarian human condition. Staniloae argues that to the extent that Adam belonged to a nation, humanity in its eschatological state will retain its national particularities.

In Revelation it has been said: not as individuals, but “nations will walk in the light of the city of Lamb,” while it is not individual persons who will enter through the doors of the city but “the glory and honour of the nations” (Rev 21:24–25), that is, each nation will bring its own spirituality through the Christian faith, thanks to the special gifts it has received from God.⁴⁵

The nation is a mandatory and constituent element for the formation of the ecclesial body, while the relationship between church and history definitely passes through the national collectivity.

Staniloae’s collectivistic and ethnocentric understanding of the church did not remain without effect but pervades almost the whole of Romanian theology, with few exceptions. For example, the Romanian Metropolitan of Transylvania Antonie Plamadeala (1926–2005), expressed similar views at the Second International Conference of Orthodox Theology, in Athens (1976) and radicalized the former’s ethnotheology, leading thus to the substitution of the local character of the church by a national character and to the interpretation of the relevant canons of the church, such as the well-known 34th “Apostolic” Canon.⁴⁶ Following Metropolitan Antonie Plamadeala and the way he interprets this canon:

At the heart of the Byzantine Empire, the Church in its hierarchical-sacerdotal and canonical administrative organization took the national element and context into consideration. The 34th Apostolic Canon is the expression of this reality, affirming in this way the ecclesiastical organization’s relationship to the national element. […] The analysis of this canon reveals that it expresses and establishes through the organization of the Church the following principles: a) the national principle, b) the principle of autocephaly. […] The view that the word “nation” at the end of the canon does not express the idea of a people or nation but rather the idea of a piece of land or a population is completely ridiculous. This is nothing other than an attempt to obfuscate the issue so that the national principle is not recognized as a criterion for the organization of autocephalous Churches.⁴⁷

Among other things, these positions also represent an anachronistic reading of history. The Byzantine Empire, even if it was marked by the (eschatological) temptation of creating the ideal of the kingdom of God on earth, was a multi-ethnic empire and knew nothing of the principle of nationalities or the phenomenon of ecclesiastical nationalism. And while, of course, the church may have been guilty of other historical sins during that period, it did not adopt the national principle in its canonical organization but rather the local, thus remaining faithful to the Ignatian view of the local church as the catholic church.

In 1939, however, Staniloae argued that “An a-national sentiment does not exist.”⁴⁸ For him, nations are not only ontologically given but also have the potential to shape individuals in the image of God. According to his ethnotheological account, Father Staniloae was absolutely convinced that if the Romanian state would be structured on the principles of Orthodoxy and Romanianism, then it would not only fulfil its eschatological mission but would also be the only nation that could offer the world a model of salvation (the nationalist-Christian).⁴⁹

Father John S. Romanides

After his important theological publications of the late 1950s and 1960s (the most important of which was his doctoral dissertation defended at the University of Athens, The Ancestral Sin (1957),⁵⁰ and a series of papers on doctrinal and ecclesiological/ecumenical issues), the great Greek-American theologian Rev. John S. Romanides came up with the theory of Romanity. This offered a very typical example of Greek Orthodox triumphalism (and anti-Westernism) and a peculiar case of “Greek Orthodoxy” and “Hellenic Christianity” (without even using the terms Greek or Hellenic). With the appearance of Romanides’ book Romanity in 1975,⁵¹ his work marked a dramatic shift from theology to cultural criticism, historiography and ethnology, and to forms of neo-Romantic and neo-nationalist ideology. Romanides’ theory now moved in an undifferentiated national-religious, historical-theological, theological-cultural and theological-political milieu. It is thus grounded not in the well-known distinction between Greek (Orthodox) East versus Latin (Roman Catholic) West but in the abysmal rivalry between the Greek-speaking and the Latin-speaking Romanity on the one hand and heretical “Frankism” on the other.⁵² This radical distinction and divide was thenceforth played against the backdrop of a seamlessly fabricated theological-cultural and theological-political ideology. In this understanding, the West is wholly demonized and held responsible for all the misfortunes of the Orthodox, both theological and historical/national. Here, Frankism is portrayed as the scene of endless conspiracies aimed at the extermination of Romanity. In fact, Romanides’ hermeneutics formed the necessary alibi for a conspiratorial, non-self-critical, historical interpretation of the sufferings and adventures of Romanity, attributing them all to Western machinations.

In this spirit, Romanides adds a new prologue to his 1989 second Greek edition of his Ancestral Sin,⁵³ where, in a frenzied tone strongly reminiscent of conspiracy theories, he accuses the “Franks” of conniving against Romiosyne and Orthodoxy. The opening lines of this prologue are highly enlightening as to his ulterior motive of incorporating a historical-political manifesto in the body of an otherwise theological work.

The present study dates from a time when efforts were made to isolate heterodox influences on Orthodox theology, and digressions from patristic tradition were all too evident. Nowadays, we are in a position to account for the political and theological circles that launched heterodox initiatives for the annihilation of Romiosyne and the Westernization of Orthodoxy.

Elaborating somewhat on his reference to these “political circles,” Romanides further stipulates: “Back when this work was written, no one yet realized that foreign think tanks had designed not only the annihilation of Romiosyne but the distortion of Orthodoxy as well, according to Western principles. Today, research leads curiously to Napoleon and his associates as the chief architect of this policy.”⁵⁴ Napoleon is further accused of aiming at more than merely seizing authority by playing the revolutionary. In Romanides’ view, Napoleon sought as a Frank to undercut the force of the French Revolution of 1789, which, according to Romanides, was nothing but an uprising of “the enslaved Gallo-Romans against the Franks, France’s nobility.” Or, as he indicates a few lines later, “the majority of Frank officers abandoned the revolution, which developed into a war of Romans versus the Franks.” For their part, “the French revolutionaries of 1789 were proud of their lineage from Rome and the Peloponnese.”⁵⁵

Even purely theological texts, such as Gregory Palamas’ In Defense of the Holy Hesychasts, published by Romanides in a series of patristic works characteristically called “Roman or Romioi Church Fathers,” would be read through this self-same and indivisible ethnoreligious, historico-theological, and theological-political perspective, as is evident in its introduction.⁵⁶ In its earliest pages, Korais (a Greek scholar of the Enlightenment) is already chided as responsible for the transformation of Romiosyne into “Hellenism,” effected through trading hesychasm (the very heart of the nation) for metaphysical and social philosophy.⁵⁷ In the same vein, his introduction ends with a fierce assault on Europeans, Russians and so-called “Latin Greeks” or “neo-Franco Greeks” (sic), who are held responsible for the destruction of Romiosyne and the undoing of its spiritual context. The introduction then closes with a call addressed to all genuine Romans to reclaim their leadership and unfetter Romiosyne from its alien spiritual bonds.⁵⁸

The above historical-theological hermeneutic (Greek-speaking and Latin- speaking Romans versus heretical Frankish invaders, Romanity versus the Franks), combined with the “three stages” theory (purification, enlightenment, glorification/theosis), hailed by Romanides as the distinctive hallmark of Orthodoxy – i.e., what sets it apart from all other religions and traditions⁵⁹ – will henceforth assume dominance in Romanides’ scholarship. It will color and undergird all of his remaining texts, regardless of topic (ecclesiological, dogmatic, or ecumenical, the relationship between faith and culture, national issues and territorial and national disputes with Greece’s neighbors, or even the relationship between religion and Orthodoxy and science and Orthodoxy). The unbridgeable rivalry between Romanity and the Franks, the rancorous common struggle of Greek and Latin speaking Romanity against the Frankish usurpers of Rome’s throne and the Teutonic distorters of the true spiritual experience (purification, enlightenment, glorification/theosis), was bound to be Romanides’ permanent theme after the 1970s, his hermeneutical key for understanding and explaining all kinds of problems, concerns, and challenges (theological, ecclesiological, etc.).

During the 1980s, 1990s, and partly even during the 2000s, Romanides’ theology strongly influenced the Greek theological and wider ecclesiastical landscape. It has had a decisive impact on the thought not only of bishops, priests, and especially monks but also lay theologians and numerous religious groups as well, inasmuch as it furnished a convenient and comforting conspiratorial explanation for the historical woes of Orthodoxy and the Romiosyne. As an explanation, of course, it is devoid of the slightest traces of repentance and self-criticism, for blame is always placed upon others: the heretics, the Franco-Latins, the Pope, Westerners, Napoleon Bonaparte, the Slavs, etc.

Small wonder, then, that Romanides’ theology has won such a large and widespread following among conservative circles in the church as well as on the far-right: he flattered the repressed frustrations, prejudices, and psychological complexes of the historically defeated modern Greeks, with the effect of cultivating theological self-sufficiency, cultural introversion, aggressiveness, and an intemperate sense of superiority. His theories on the Romiosyne have never been resisted or challenged by a robust counter-theology, nor has his book (and other related publications) been subjected to serious critical commentary in the forty-seven years after its first appearance.⁶⁰ What interests us here, with regard to Romanides’ texts and teaching, is the total demonizing of the West, the chiliastic conflation of Orthodoxy and spirituality with Romanity/Romiosyne, and last but not least, the reductive geographical identification of all those graced with the vision of God and the uncreated light with the so-called citizens of Romanity/Romiosyne! In the characteristic words of Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and St. Vlassios, one of Father John Romanides’ most faithful followers, “Father Romanides had devoted himself entirely to the cause of Romiosyne, which to him was the quintessence of all genuine spirituality, the kind that frees us from self-love, material lust, and every other expression of fallen humankind.”⁶¹

Outside the territory of Romanity, Greek-speaking or Latin-speaking, there does not seem to be – for Father Romanides – either repentance and spiritual struggle, holiness, theosis/theoptia, nor salvation, as all the above seem to be limited or connected to a specific cultural and geographical domain. Bearing in mind the definition of Romanity and Roman given by Romanides himself (the citizen of the Roman Empire, incorrectly called Byzantium), we can conclude that holiness, theosis, and genuine Orthodoxy is ultimately identified for the Greek-American theologian with a particular empire (the Roman), and its culture, its territory, and its citizens. Orthodox peoples who formed no part of this empire, by chance or choice, such as the Slavs, are either ignored by Romanides or openly denounced as collaborators with the Franks and traitors of Romiosyne. It is certainly no accident that, as far as I know, Romanides nowhere makes references to Slavic and especially Russian saints or ascetics. Thus, in its dual version, as a state and as a culture, as a citizenship and as a spiritual path to holiness and theosis, Romanity is described in Romanides’ work in terms of spiritual and cultural authenticity and supremacy.

Christos Yannaras

Another very influential Greek theologian, philosopher, and columnist, Christos Yannaras was the most characteristic representative of the Greek generation of the 1960s. He contributed so much through his work to the renewal of Orthodox theology in Greece and the wider Orthodox world. Yannaras came to support and systematize – as a sort of a metaphysical axiom – the theory of an unbroken continuity of Hellenism, not in the field of history but in that of thought and culture. Yannaras’ unbroken continuity, which illustrates in the most characteristic way, the cultural hermeneutics of Florovsky’s “Christian Hellenism,” clearly differs from the racial one and focuses specifically on the dialogical/communal and apophatic version of truth from Heraclitus through St. Gregory Palamas and in his theory of the survival of an enduring cultural Greekness. In his view, this Greekness transcends historical, political, and religious divisions and maintains certain unique characteristics unchanged over time. Yannaras’ hermeneutic first debuted, in its original form, in his early works at the beginning of the 1970s whereas, after 1979–80,⁶² there’s hardly a single work by Yannaras that does not derive from or add further support to his theory of an unbroken continuity of Hellenic culture from classical antiquity to the present. According to Yannaras, the truth is never exhausted in its formulation, just as the cognizance of prepositional truth cannot be completely identified with its non-verbal, original version. Thus, Yannaras developed his thesis of “the Greek identification of the truth with the common logos, in other words with a social version of the truth,” a Heraclitian identification of being in truth with being in communion. Without this identification, Yannaras claims, “it is simply impossible to make any sense of the Greek way of life from the 5th century BC to the 15th century AD.”⁶³ It thus follows that the suggested epistemological continuity, premised on the concept of truth, common to both pre-Christian and Christian Hellenism, as an event of interpersonal participation and communion, would now serve as a point of contact and a platform for the encounter of Hellenism and Christianity, chiefly through the grand theological synthesis of the Greek Fathers.⁶⁴

For Yannaras, this version of the truth constitutes the very crux of the cultural identity of Hellenism, inasmuch as “yet … the moderately formed Greek, with at least some philosophical and theological education, suspects or knows that it is a peculiarity of his culture to be defined in particular by the apophatic interpretation of truth – from the time of Heraclitus to that of Gregory Palamas.”⁶⁵ It is actually this definition of truth, above all else, that “determines every other difference between the two traditions or cultures,”⁶⁶ i.e., the Greek and Western respectively.

Elsewhere, Yannaras reiterates his standard position that what sets the Greek tradition apart from the West is the former’s consistent preservation, again from Heraclitus to Gregory Palamas, of apophatic epistemology. He sees this divergence as instrumental in the ecclesiastical schism between East and West and no less responsible for the “religious” distortion of the church:

Had the Greek intelligentsia been more resistant to [sweeping slogans], they would have discovered more kinship with the heretical founders of modernity. For what radically sets Greece (ancient and medieval alike) apart from the West is its consistent commitment to apophaticism, as evidenced in the tradition from Heraclitus to Gregory Palamas. The search for “meaning” in the Greek tradition, i.e., the ontological concern, was never trapped in dogmas or in different authoritarian forms a priori. The Greek intelligentsia learned at long last that Christianity was once split into two because the Greek Church consciousness and experience refused to walk with the then-barbaric West on the way to a “religious” distortion of the ecclesial event and its submission to doctrines and infallible authorities.⁶⁷

Yannaras’ theory of the unbroken continuity of Greek thought and culture from Heraclitus to Gregory Palamas would soon be complemented by a more historical and “political” – and at the same time more fixed – dimension: one that not only likes to constantly discover the Greeks’ enduring apophatic attitude vis-à-vis the issue of truth but also sees an enduring civility and a sense of nobility in the Greeks, as well as their destiny as an aristocratic people, to live in leisure, i.e., to be free from the savage need to earn a living and to focus instead on producing culture: to philosophize, to exercise virtue, and to cultivate the art of politics. They thus leave manual labor (which is identical to the subjection to need) to other people, who are like sheep in their need for production. For the latter, the highest goal of salvation has become intertwined with the idea of work and faithfulness, Labor et Fides – as Yannaras himself characteristically writes in his book Undefined Greece,⁶⁸ in which he records experiences, events, and discussions from his encounters with Greeks in the Diaspora in Australia, Canada, and the U.S.

This constant preoccupation with the theme of the inherent gentleness and nobility of the aristocratic Greeks, this theological and cultural fomentation and justification of the quest for excellence and superiority that inevitably takes place at the expense of others, and this continual reference to faith almost exclusively in terms of culture and, indeed, in a way that often seems to exclude some from this faith because they are not culturally mature appear to be consistent features of the thought and work of Yannaras. Thus, his later works are distinguished by, among other things, a disengagement from theology as such in favor of or because of philosophy and especially culture/identity. Yannaras refers consistently in these later works even to worship and to the Divine Liturgy in terms not only of the nobility, gentleness, and culture of the Greeks but also of the leading role played by Orthodox worship in the living cultural witness to Hellenism throughout the Greek diaspora in America and the modern world in general.⁶⁹

From this perspective, “Greek Orthodox liturgy” seems, according to Yannaras, to be the most important or rather the only, bulwark against the imminent destruction, dissolution, and collapse of the “little Greek state”: ancient Greek drama continues every week in thousands of churches and communities of Greeks around the world, recapitulating the historical development of the Greek language. All the discussion about Orthodox worship, and especially the Divine Liturgy, as a foretaste of and participation in the eschatological kingdom and all that this entails in theological and ecclesiastical terms does not appear to interest Yannaras here. The Divine Liturgy is not seen in terms of participating in the eschatological banquet of the coming Lord, which constitutes the Body of Christ and the people of God. Rather, what matters in the passage under discussion is the cultural dimension of worship, the expression through liturgy of Greekness and the spirit of resistance the latter preserves. For this reason, this understanding of the Divine Liturgy concerns every Greek – regardless of faith and regardless of his spiritual struggle and the existential leap of faith that this presupposes. In the words of Yannaras himself:

Imagine if in every neighborhood of a Greek city, in every village, in every Greek community of the diaspora, we were to stage an ancient Greek tragedy every week. We would consider it a tangible, dynamic presence and witness to Hellenicity. We would have assured the survival of the language, as well as the ethos and way of life that Hellenism carries with it, even if the little Greek state were to be destroyed.

And we ordinary and unimportant citizens have something even more significant in our hands: a living, weekly act of the people that continues ancient Greek dramaturgy. It recapitulates the historical evolution of our language and our cultural contribution in dazzling poetry, revelatory painting, and engrossing melody. We have the Greek Orthodox liturgy – every week in thousands of churches, throughout the world, wherever there is a Greek community.

I will be so bold as to say that it does not matter whether someone “believes” or not, whether someone is “religious” or not. The tangible expression of Greekness that is the liturgy is our living and active culture and must be preserved at all costs. It is up to every Greek to save it.

We must preserve the cultural dynamic of the Greek Orthodox liturgy, and we must all enlist in the service of cleansing it from “religionization,” which is foreign to it. Specifically, this is what I propose: That we establish groups toward this end in every city, every neighborhood, and every village and community.⁷⁰

This unprecedented instrumentalization of Orthodoxy’s liturgical tradition is not content with simply buttressing claims of unbroken Greek continuity, as is evident in many of Yannaras’ texts.⁷¹ In his thinking, Orthodox worship is inextricably tied to the search for identity and reflection on Greek uniqueness. Orthodox worship, then, comes to be understood in some of Yannaras’ works in a cultural rather than a theological way and less in an eschatological way. It is conceived of as the most, if not only, defining characteristic of Greeks today, and thus represents that expression, that aspect of life, by which the Greek people still manage to be culturally distinct from the dominant globalizing Western model.⁷² Even in his autobiographical work On Himself, Yannaras was not able to avoid a reference to or tangent about Orthodox worship as a distinctive mark of the Greeks’ nobility, gentleness, and culture or about the liturgical act as fidelity to and confirmation of the cultural superiority of the Orthodox and the Greeks over all others.⁷³

In such a reading and understanding of worship, it is of little importance that this wonderful “we” is not national/racial but cultural. It matters little that the divisive role of ethnophyletism is undertaken by cultural or ecumenical/universal Hellenism since it is diametrically opposed to the liturgical “we” that highlights the church as a spiritual homeland for all people in one spiritual race and since it contradicts the very core of the Gospel, the consciousness of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy as a work of every single believer everywhere throughout the world.

But Yannaras’ theory of the unbroken continuity of Greek thought from Heraclitus to Gregory Palamas is inconceivable without his understanding of the relationship between church and culture, between truth and cultural context, as it has taken shape over the last few years. In fact, in his writings,⁷⁴ the pivotal role the cultural criterion plays in Yannaras’ thought leads him to make the catholicity of each local church (and the authentic manifestation thereof) dependent on the conditions of its cultural milieu, with language regarded as the foremost criterion. For Yannaras, culture is a prerequisite for granting access to the ecclesial event and way of life. Small wonder, then, that Yannaras has increasingly supported the view that one cannot be fully Orthodox if one does not participate in the ultimate synthesis of Hellenism and Christianity that was produced by the great Greek Fathers of the 4th century AD, if one is not familiar with the unprecedented achievements of ancient Greek philosophy and semantics, or if one is not conversant in the language of Greek ontology that contributed so much to the formulation of Christian doctrine.

This remarkable and unique position of Christian Hellenism makes it part and parcel or “flesh of theology’s flesh,” the diachronic (and henceforth obligatory) historical-cultural flesh of the church. It is this to such a degree, in fact, that even today, according to Yannaras, the church must formulate and preach the truth of the Gospel of salvation in every place and time in Greek cultural and philosophical terms. In the same way, Yannaras routinely attributes the limited – and, in his view, problematic – assimilation of Christianity by the so-called “barbaric tribes” that conquered Rome in the 5th century AD to their cultural and intellectual retardation. Even today, he thinks that the people of mission, such as Africans and Asians, have to become acquainted with Greek cultural and philosophical achievements in order to become fully Orthodox.⁷⁵ Hellenism is thus elevated to the status of a crucial and indispensable prerequisite for the manifestation of the true, catholic church, just as “Jewishness” was deemed the necessary medium for the Ιncarnation of Christ, God’s manifestation in the flesh. In this way, Hellenism is assigned a special role in Yannaras’ thought in the Divine economy of salvation.

Indeed, a particular and crucial aspect of Yannaras’ Helleno-Christian theology, which was manifest already fairly early (1977)⁷⁶ but became more prominent over time throughout his later work, especially in his texts after 1990,⁷⁷, not only raises the idea of the diachronic unity and continuity of the individual phases of Hellenism’s cultural development. It also hints at a theory in which Greekness, as the historical flesh that presented Hellenism as the full expression of Orthodoxy gives us the right to speak about Hellenism’s unique (and not incidental) role in the plan of the Divine economy, a role analogous to that of the Ιncarnation of God through the Jews, which, for a believer, is also not coincidental. More precisely, ecclesiastical catholicity for Yannaras is connected not only to ecclesial and theological presuppositions but also to cultural ones. This is why, in addition to the fundamental characteristics of the catholicity of the church (such as the centrality of the Eucharist and the bishop to the constitution of the ecclesial body), Yannaras also adds a basic component of his theology and his theory/philosophy of culture in general, stating that the authentic manifestation of every local church’s catholicity is connected directly to its cultural/historical flesh, to its native language, and the expression of its living, native culture. This is such a critical parameter for Yannaras, such an absolute necessity, that he goes so far as to claim that

if we underestimate or misunderstand the local language, the expression of its living, native culture (defined geographically and temporally), we remove its enhypostatic reality from the ecclesial mode of existence. We change it into a mental conception and moralistic deontology, into abstract “beliefs” and expedient canonical “principles.” Without the flesh of culture, the Church becomes an “ism”: Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, or “Orthodoxism” – different ideological versions of rationalistic metaphysics and utilitarian ethics, all with ambitions of universalism, i.e., geographical “catholicity.”⁷⁸

Yannaras goes further, however, highlighting the Christological concomitant of this theological/ecclesiological position, emphasizing not simply the historicity and reality of the Incarnation but –not incidentally, as we will see shortly– also ethnicity, the particular language and cultural background of the Incarnate One:

the Causal Principle of any being, inaccessible to the mind and senses, assumed the flesh of biological individuality, the flesh of a rational subject of a particular background and a particular historical place. He assumed ethnicity and language and, with that, the inherent worldview of the time in order to deify this assumption.⁷⁹

Given this, he concludes that:

since then, every time the Christological prototype of existence is realized in each particular eucharistic community, it too has its specific historical “flesh” – national, ethic, linguistic, and cultural. The Gospel of the Church is not an ideological premise that we adopt as a “superstructure” to the practice of our lives, a practice that varies according to our local customs and culture. The Gospel is embodied in the practice of life, and only when it is incarnate does it become a mode of being.⁸⁰

It is quite obvious here that Yannaras makes no reference to – or simply ignores – the eschatological Christ, the coming Lord of glory who will unite all previous differences and overturn, through the Cross, every type of division and fragmentation (such as those based on sex, race, ethnicity, language, culture, social class, and background). Rather, he is content to highlight and, in fact, considers the cultural aspects of the historical Christ, which in this case can be summarized as Jewishness, as absolutely essential for every place and age. Obviously, the goal of this pivotal theological choice is its applicability by analogy to Greekness (which, of course, is the historical flesh of the Church), i.e., to a vital and irreplaceable part of tangible catholicity and authentic church life.

The eschatological deficit in Yannaras’ corpus also explains his emphasis on culture. His work has a blatantly protological orientation, with a strong yearning for origins in the form of a call to return to roots and tradition. Theologically, this tendency translates into a view of the Eucharist as a manifestation in the present of God’s eschatological promises, with little or no emphasis on the Church’s intrinsically eschatological nature. It is in the name of culture, then, that the (unwaveringly premodern) classical Greek and Byzantine past is justified and extolled up to and including the Greek Orthodox communities from the period of Ottoman occupation. These communities in particular are lauded as the embodiment of authentic social life, as the ideal social setting for the emergence of true personhood, on account of their being grounded in the true ecclesial way of life.⁸¹ Contemporary Greece and Europe, by contrast, are perceived as areas of decline and estrangement (from a glorious past), while the future is viewed with pessimism.

The espousal of a supposedly seamless cultural continuity running throughout the entire history of Hellenism has resulted in a gradual redirection of Yannaras’ work from a theological to a cultural emphasis and the adoption of a hardened anti-Westernism with pronounced cultural underpinnings.⁸² It is precisely the implementation of this cultural criterion that causes Yannaras to blur the lines between theology and philosophy, a move that, in turn, allows him to visualize Hellenism in terms of an unbreakable intellectual and cultural unity over the entire course of its history.

The above examples of ethnotheology are surprising, and even awkward for their ethno-religious or cultural proud and the sense of greatness/“Great Idea,” for the glorification respectively of the Romanian, Roman (Byzantine) or Hellenic people and culture as well as for the aggressive anti-Westernism (and also anti-Semitism, in Staniloae’s case), and the praise of Orthodox isolationism. Nevertheless, the three of them remained on the level of a self-sufficient, self-justifying discourse, and a romantic self-exaltation rhetoric and were not actively involved in any kind of violent or aggressive acts, in wars and crimes. Unfortunately, this was not the case with the following examples which are involved in violent acts, while supporting aggressive ideologies.

Metropolitan of Montenegro Amfilohjie Radovic and Bishop of Herzegovina Atanasije Jevtic

Ethnotheology seems to be strongly rooted in contemporary Serbian Orthodox theology, finding sound expression in the persons of Metropolitan Amfilohije Radovic and Bishop Atanasije Jevtic (but not limited only to them, although we cannot classify the whole of contemporary Serbian theology under the heading of ethnotheology). Previously, the great figures of modern Serbian Orthodoxy, Bishop Nikolai Velimirovic and Father Justin Popovic (both of them now recognized as saints by the Serbian Orthodox Church), developed the idea of the “Serbian people as servant of God,”⁸³ or of “[t]he mystery and spiritual meaning of the battle in Kosovo,”⁸⁴ consolidating thus a messianic self-consciousness, and a theory of victimization among the Serbian people. In doing so, both authors are well within the prevailing (at the time) understanding and application of the tradition of saintsavaism, which as a theological orientation appears in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in the 1930s. The movement took its name from the founder of the Serbian Church, St. Sava, a fact that emphasizes the national character of Serbian Orthodoxy as opposed to the catholic character of the Orthodox Church.⁸⁵ Saintsavaism was nominally rooted in and particularly promoted by Popovic’s views onit as a holistic philosophy of life.⁸⁶ This philosophy placed the primacy of the Divine over the human at its center and – because of its very strong exclusivist soteriology, ecclesiology, and theology of virtues – was criticized to promote and expand antimodernist ideas, religious intolerance, and ethnoreligious nationalism and even to have affinities with totalitarian ideologies such as National Socialism.⁸⁷ The debate concerning this last point (saintsavaism and National Socialism) focuses on a speech by Bishop Nikolai Velimirovic delivered in Belgrade in 1935 called “The Nationalism of Saint Sava.” In this speech he not only establishes a connection between Saint Sava and Adolf Hitler but also praised Hitler for doing what the founder of the Serbian Orthodox Church did in the 13th century:

One must render homage to the present German leader who, as a simple craftsman and man of the people, realized that nationalism without religion is an anomaly, a cold and insecure mechanism. Thus, in the twentieth century he arrived at Saint Sava’s idea and as a layman undertook the most important task in his nation that befits a saint, genius, and hero.⁸⁸

Taking into account Velimirovic’s later biography and his detention in the Dachau Nazi concentration camp during WWII, many would agree with Neven Vukic’s opinion that, at worst, the above unfortunate quotation was “an error in judgement on the part of Velimirovic, with regards to the character of the German dictator.”⁸⁹

The cases of the distinguished late Serbian hierarchs and eminent theologians of the Belgrade Faculty of Theology (both died of COVID during the academic year 2020–21, refusing to practise social distancing), the former Bishop of Zahumije and Herzegovina Atanasije Jevtic, and Metropolitan Amfilohije Radovic of Montenegro and the Littoral, should be listed among the examples of ethnotheology in Orthodoxy. Both developed an ethnotheological discourse, tolerating – if not encouraging and blessing – violent acts, war crimes, or even crimes against humanity while both were criticized as being among those who energetically opposed peace plans during the Yugoslav wars.⁹⁰ Both bishops were among the most influential hierarchs of the Serbian Orthodox Church with great influence not only within church related milieus but also among politicians, journalists, intellectuals, university professors, and the wider society of Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the context of the dramatic conditions of the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, these hierarchs increasingly slipped away from theology into ethnotheology and “patriotic theology” in their post-1992⁹¹ texts, discourses, sermons, and public interventions. Time and space do not suffice to record, analyze, and discuss all the relevant sources and evidence related to these two well-known Serbian hierarchs. In addition, the linguistic barrier is a major problem for people who do not speak the Serbian language but want to get a well-informed understanding of the tragic events that took place in the former Yugoslavia and the way hierarchs, theologians, and the Orthodox in general reacted to them. But many of us – especially in Greece, where the two late bishops felt at home, having a wide audience, and were allowed to express themselves during lectures and round tables in a free and confident way – were left with the impression that these great ecclesiastical and theological personalities were won over by the defense of the Serbian national cause and that theology had taken a back seat.

Thus, to limit myself to just a few elements, in a 1990 interview with the Belgrade weekly NIN Metropolitan Amfilohije Radovic maintained that “Milosevic and other leading politicians in Serbia should be commended for understanding the vital interests of the Serb people at this moment. […] If they continue as they have started, the results will be very impressive.”⁹² In addition, as reported in Neven Vukic’s doctoral dissertation (1995), the convicted war criminal, Vojislav Seselj, an extremely controversial figure, was awarded a medal for his role in the Kosovo War, for his service to the justice of God against the inhumane justice of the International Criminal Tribunal exercised against the former Yugoslavia in The Hague (The Netherlands). In addition, he called on Vojislav Seselj to continue his chivalric work of defending the soul and face of the Serbian people.⁹³

In addition, Metropolitan Amfilohije Radovic, took it upon himself to organize a conference in Cetinje, Montenegro, in 1996 in the wake of the end of the Bosnian War, and looming war crimes proceedings, on the relation between Orthodox Christianity and war. At this conference, he did not fail to include the leader of the Bosnian Serbs of that time, Radovan Karadzic, among the invited speakers. Karadzic is now a convicted war criminal, who has been found guilty of the charge of genocide and of other crimes committed during the war in Bosnia (1992–995), and who had already been indicted at that time by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague (Netherlands) for his direct responsibility in the Srebrenica Genocide.⁹⁴ The proceedings of that conference were published later that same year by the publishing house of the Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral with the blessing of Metropolitan Amfilohije as The Lamb of God and the Beast from the Abyss.⁹⁵

This volume contains contributions by Radovan Karadzic, scholars and a number of clerics, especially from Montenegro. It seeks primarily to justify the Serbian war in Bosnia and provide for a general “philosophical” opposition to the anti-war literature published in Yugoslavia.⁹⁶

As to the connection of Karadzic and his ethnoreligious project to the Serbian Church, according to Radmila Radic,

The leader of the Serbs in Bosnia-Hercegovina, Radovan Karadzic, confirmed at the beginning of 1994 that the relationship between the church and the state was excellent, stating that, “Our clergy are present at all our deliberations and in the decision making processes; the voice of the church is respected as the voice of highest authority.” Karadzic also added that everything he achieved in life he owed to religion and the church and that whatever he did, he did “with God in mind.”⁹⁷

In his turn the former Bishop of Herzegovina Atanasije Jevtic, who also contributed to the aforementioned conference in Cetinje, and to its Proceedings, went so far as to argue that: “war is intrinsic to the whole of creation (even angels warred against each other), that is simply the way of the world.” Apparently, he was under a strong emotional shock provoked by aggressions of the rival side of the Yugoslavian wars (Bosnian Croats, the allies of Muslims in the civil war, destroyed his cathedral church of the Holy Trinity in Mostar, in 1992). According to Bishop Atanasie Jevtic, the Serbs fought a valiant and heroic war, a defensive war that was conducted as self-defence against probable genocide at the hands of the Croats and Muslims. Here, he was referring to the war crimes committed by the Nazi-collaborationist government of Ustashe of the so-called “Independent State of Croatia,” a puppet state of the Axis Powers, which had implemented its own racial laws and ran its own death camps. Atanasije Jevtic was even opposed to the peace that was established in Bosnia with the Dayton Accords (1995), and defended this view theologically by asserting that “any war is better than a peace that separates one from God.”⁹⁸

Neven Vukic attempts to recount and frame the wider context in his doctoral dissertation. He writes:

Similar sentiments on the preference for war rather than the “wrong kind of peace,” had been expressed […], in the official journal of the Serbian Church, Pravoslavlje, by Archpriest Bozidar Mijac. In addition to elaborating on the preference for a “good war” over a “bad and godless peace,” the author apparently argues for the presence of not only “just” and “unjust” individuals in wars but also for that of “just” and “unjust” nations. Moreover, the enemies of the Serbian forces in the wars are likened to the apocalyptic beasts and the forces of chaos described in the Book of Revelation.⁹⁹

Before closing this section with examples from Serbian ethnotheology or “patriotic theology” or even “war theology,” it should be noted that both hierarchs at the beginning of their theological journey seemed to follow a different path. In commenting on the religious nationalism and ethnophyletism in a very dense, penetrating, and theologically promising paper published in Greek in 1971, Metropolitan Amfilohije raised the pertinent question of the role played by Ottoman domination and the Qur’an (with its conflation of religion and nation) in the emergence and shape of religious nationalism in Orthodoxy.¹⁰⁰ In the same work,¹⁰¹ this distinguished Serbian clergyman and theologian, alluding to the related formulations of the 1872 Synod of Constantinople’s dogmatic “decree,” connects the phenomenon of ethnophyletism, which annuls the catholicity and universality of the church, to the resurgence of a particular “Jewish temptation.” This temptation lies in the priority of physical realities and the worship of ancestors and relatives according to the flesh, in the overvaluation of the “religion of the ancestors” and the “national god” over and against the universal call to salvation and ecumenicity.¹⁰² On the other side, Bishop Atanasije Jevtic, then an hieromonk preparing his PhD dissertation at Athens University, was the first to translate and introduce to the Greek public the work of Father Justin Popovic and especially his now illustrious collection of articles, Ἄνθρωπος καὶ Θεάνθρωπος [Man and the God-Man], which was published in Greek in 1969, and then in different languages. One of the famous quotations of this book deals exactly with the issue of the church-nation relationship, summarizing the foregoing patristic tradition in Popovic’s theological language:

The Church is ecumenical, catholic, God-human, ageless, and it is therefore a blasphemy – an unpardonable blasphemy against Christ and against the Holy Ghost – to turn the Church into a national institution, to narrow her down to petty, transient, time-bound aspirations and ways of doing things. Her purpose is beyond nationality, ecumenical, all-embracing: to unite all men in Christ, all without exception to nation or race or social strata. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” (Gal. 3:28), because “Christ is all, and in all.” The means and methods of this all-human God-human union of all in Christ have been provided by the Church, through the holy sacraments and in her God-human works (ascetic exertions, virtues). And so it is: in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the ways of Christ and the means of uniting all people are composed and defined and integrated. Through this mystery, man is made organically one with Christ and with all the faithful.¹⁰³

Even under the tragic and very difficult circumstances, defined by the war and the persecution, it is difficult to reconcile what was said at the beginning of the 1970s with what was done during the 1990s. I have consciously avoided generalizing the discussion on the complex issue of the attitude and responsibilities of the Serbian Orthodox Church during the wars and ethnic conflicts of the 1990s in former Yugoslavia, as such a discussion is neither easy nor can it be conducted without certain presuppositions (such as knowledge of the language and free access to the relevant sources). It is clear that further research should be done in this area, while self-criticism and the healing of memories and the reconciliation process (like the one undertaken in 2012–2013 by the Serbian Orthodox Bishop Grigorije of Herzegovina [now Serbian Bishop in Germany] and the Catholic Bishop of Dubrovnik in Croatia ([now Archbishop Coadjutor of the Archdiocese of Rijeka], Mate Uzinic), is greatly needed.¹⁰⁴

Russkii Mir (“Russian World”)

In fact, the recent Russian invasion of and war in Ukraine brought the notorious theory of Russkii Mir (Russian World),¹⁰⁵ to the forefront again. This is a new “theopolitical ideology […] which is supposed to unite at least East-Slavic Orthodoxy (if not other Orthodox Churches) and their host countries against the perceived threats of ‘Western’ globalization”¹⁰⁶ and which is considered to provide the ideological basis, and the theological justification of the aggression. Yet we cannot appreciate this “Russian World” ideology without connecting it to the “Third Rome” theory, which henceforth forms part of the Russkii Mir and the Russian “Great Idea” that is actively promoted – at least since 2009 and the accession of Patriarch Kyrill to the patriarchal see of Moscow – by church and state in Russia.

As it widely regarded by scholars, the monk Filofei of Pskov (d. ca 1542) sent a letter (1515) to the Grand Duke Vasily III of Moscow (1479–1533) in which for the first time he called him to the high office of Emperor (Tsar) of the Third and Final Rome. According to this monk, the first two Romes had failed to their mission as a result of a combination of corruption and heresy (for instance, Constantinople had capitulated to the First Rome at the Council of Florence). Since then, however, and until the coming of the Kingdom of God, it appears that all Christian kingdoms “have merged into one”: “Two Romes have fallen. The third stands [firm]. And there will not be a fourth. No one will replace your Christian tsardom.”¹⁰⁷

Taking advantage of the “Third Rome” idea and extending it further, now in view of the challenges posed by globalization and within the post-Soviet, post-communist context, President Putin and Patriarch Kyrill developed the idea and the ideology of the “Russian World” in numerous discourses and church-state initiatives. Kyrill delivered two speeches at the Assembly of the Foundation of “Russian World” in 2009–2010, articulating his vision and defining the preservation and sustainability of the endangered Russian culture in the context of globalization as the priority.¹⁰⁸ By appealing to spirituality and the ecumenical character of Orthodoxy, Kyrill outlined “bold objectives (sc. in his speeches), including (sc. the) assertion that only a strong Russian World” will be able “to become a ‘strong subject of global international politics, stronger than all political alliances’.” Deacon Nicholas Denysenko commented as follows, “Kyrill’s teaching seeks to galvanize and solidify the unity of the people of Rus’ through the ministries proposed by the Moscow Patriarchate, which would hypothetically result in an alliance founded upon Orthodox spirituality, stronger that worldly political alliances.”¹⁰⁹ In sum, “Russian World” is more a political/“imperial” and ethnocultural project than an ecclesial or theological one, an ideological manifesto, as became evident from the long quotation by Sergei Chapnin who worked with the Moscow Patriarchate for years¹¹⁰ and understands from inside the “logic” behind the support provided by the Russian Church to the “Russian World” teaching:

The Church has taken on a complex ideological significance over the last decade, not least because of the rise of the concept of Russkiy Mir, or “Russian World.” This way of speaking presumes a fraternal coexistence of the Slavic peoples – Russian, Ukrainian, Belarussian – in a single “Orthodox Civilization.” It is a powerful archetype. It is an image of unity that appeals to Russians, because it gives them a sense of a larger destiny and supports the imperial vision that increasingly characterizes Russian politics. The currency of “Russian World” within the Church today indicates that Orthodoxy is becoming a political religion. That the Church has come to mirror the state in its rhetoric and animating vision is hardly surprising. […] In these cultural circumstances, people in high places in both the government and Church see that, with an imperial outlook of her own, Orthodoxy might be able to fill the vacuum left by the defunct Communist Party in the system of post-Soviet administration. This potential has been clear even to those functionaries who keep their distance from the Church. The need for a political religion was formulated by state authorities around 2010 – something that coincided with the election of Kyrill, a Russian World enthusiast, to the Patriarchal See of Moscow. It is in one sense natural that church leaders such as Kyrill would wish to promote a Russian World that transcends the political boundaries of present-day Russia. Orthodox believers are united theologically even if they live in different countries, and many are formally united under the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow. Church leaders are certainly right to further this unity, expanding and deepening our friendship in Christ across geographical borders. But as critics point out, speaking of a Russian World serves the state more than it serves the Church. It mobilizes religion, especially the esteem of the Slavic peoples for the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, for political purposes. Its primary effect will surely be not church unity, but rather the strengthening of Russian influence in Ukraine and Belarus.¹¹¹

This more political, ideological, and ethnocultural than ecclesial or theological character of the project of the “Russian World” clearly appears from the following long and significant quotation from Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev:

Russia, Ukraine and Belarus constitute one spiritual space framed by the Russian Orthodox Church. This space was formed over a thousand years, during which national borders appeared, disappeared and were moved many times, but spiritual commonality remained intact despite numerous external efforts aimed at shattering this unity. […]

As far back as the 10th century, the diptychs of the Church of Constantinople first mention the Metropolia of Rus’. Initially the title of its head had no additional naming of a city, but was just τῆς Ῥωσίας, that is “of Rus.” When Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich and after him the whole Rus’ embraced Christianity, Orthodoxy became the main spiritual and moral pivot for all the East Slavic ethnic groups that soon appeared in these territories. That moment marked the outset of the history of “Holy Rus’” – a historical phenomenon which owed its existence to the powerful unifying role of the Russian Church in the vast territories of the Great, Little and White Rus’ and in other territories which at different times were in the sphere of its influence.

[…] [I]t was the Church of Constantinople that defended the unity of the Russian Metropolia in the 12th century. Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges added a word “all” to the old title of Metropolitan of Kiev – τῆς πάσης Ῥωσίας (“of All Rus’”) – in order to emphasize the indivisibility of the Russian Church.

[…] Signs of crisis in the life of the Soviet Union were constantly increasing in the late 1980s. […] On 17 March 1991, the all-Union referendum, the only one in the history of the USSR, was conducted on whether to preserve the united state or not. The majority of citizens of the Soviet Union voted in favor of its preservation. However, on 8 December 1991, leaders of the three USSR Republics – Ukraine, Byelorussia and the Russian Federation – signed the so-called “Belovezha Accords” which established the Commonwealth of Independent States. What is the Church’s attitude towards these centrifugal processes? On the one hand, the fall of the atheist regime was welcomed, for it marked the end of years of persecution and discrimination against believers, of uprooting from people’s consciousness any reminder of Christ, Gospel, Church. […]

On the other hand, the disintegration of the united state and establishment on its basis of a whole number of independent countries with their own views on future development caused numerous divisions that affected not only territories, but also people, their families. […]

Such a dramatic situation was caused, according to His Holiness Patriarch Kyrill of Moscow and All Russia, by, among other things, “the decay of national consciousness, national pride, by the inability to comprehend history in all its complexity and to realize an immense importance of historical commonality of people for their material and spiritual prosperity.”

By God’s mercy the disintegration of the Soviet Union did not bring about the disintegration of our Church, which now, just like hundreds of years ago, carries out its mission in the lands of its historical presence.

The unity of the Russian Church is the most important aspect of spiritual and cultural commonality of the Slavic nations in the post-Soviet countries – of the Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. Disregard for this historical fact and, moreover, attempts to shatter this unity, as well as interference of authorities and politicians in church affairs with the view of gaining momentary benefits are a crime against this and future generations.

[…] We believe that the one Church is the strong Church. Its strength lies not in the secular attributes of power, welfare or might, but in its ability to exert spiritual and moral influence on human souls, on the attitude to those near and those far off, and even on the relations between nations and people on the global level.

We pursue the upholding of Gospel values in the life of European society because Orthodox people in many countries of pastoral responsibility of our Church live in Europe. Their faith, spiritual ideals, culture and traditions bring an important contribution to the European Christian heritage. Therefore, we bear our part of responsibility for civilizational space of the European continent.

We cannot stay indifferent to the attempts to destroy the traditions of the family, to erode the notion of Christian marriage and the God-commanded foundations of relations between man and woman, and to abortions and euthanasia that devalue human life.

At all international forums, including the European ones in the first place, we bear witness to the Gospel truth. This witness, as well as acts of mercy and peacemaking serve the reinforcing of the Christian roots of Europe and foundations of its civilization.

As to the question put in the title of our conference, I would like to underscore that Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are one spiritual space. We contest neither national self-identification of the three Slavic nations, nor the boundaries of the independent states, but we will continue our struggle for the preservation of the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church which assures spiritual unity of all Orthodox believers living within its space irrespective of their national and ethnic belonging. Simple words of the holy elder Lavrenty of Chernigov “Russia, Ukraine, Belarus – all these are Holy Rus’” remain topical and resound in the hearts of millions of people.¹¹²

The whole “Russian World” idea and the way it has been implemented meet the main criteria of ethnotheology, i.e., the pre-eminence of the political and national element over the ecclesial, the uniqueness of Russia as a Christian civilization, and the understanding of faith in terms of culture, civilization, and ancestral heritage, as well as the inversion of the paradoxical and antinomic relationship between eschatology and history, or the oblivion of the biblical “in the world, but not of the world, for the sake of the world.” Thus, according to the “Russian World” teaching, there is a transnational Russian sphere or civilization or ecumene (another translation for the word mir) or peace (an alternative translation for mir along the lines of the Pax Romana), called Holy Russia or Holy Rus’ (to make a clear reference to the connection of all “Russian” peoples to the Baptism of Rus’) that includes Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (and sometimes Moldova and Kazakhstan) as well as ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people throughout the world. It thus introduces an ecclesiological conception that understands the church on the ethnocultural identity of its members (“phyletism”). It holds that this “Russian World” is bonded together by a common spiritual center (Kyiv as the “mother of all Rus”), a common political center (Moscow), a common language (Russian), a common church (the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate), and a common Patriarch (the Patriarch of Moscow) who works in “symphony” with a common president/national leader (Putin) to govern this Russian World, as well as upholding a common distinctive spirituality, morality, and culture.¹¹³ Thus, Patriarch Kyrill is supposed to work

in “symphony” with the common national leader (Putin) in order to consolidate morally, culturally, and spiritually this space of civilization distinct from all others. Thus, there is an indisputable continuity between the soil, ethnic identity, belonging to the same people, the same church, and subjection to the same power.¹¹⁴

With all these ideological characteristics, it becomes clear that a central place in the “Russian World” is occupied “not by a nation but an imagined civilization. In this regard, the Russian world is one of those ‘imagined communities’ described by Benedict Anderson. As an ideology, the Russian word does not reflect an empirical reality but resides in and captivates the imagination of a people.”¹¹⁵

In addition, and as a logical consequence, on the occasion of Patriarch Kyrill’s meeting with Pope Francis in Havana in 2016, he described himself in his remarks to the press as the Patriarch of “All Russia,” meaning, in his own view, the “historical [i.e., greater] Russia.” If that is the case, then and as soon as the Moscow Patriarchate and its leader constitute the canonical Church of historical Russia and the bearer of its eternal Orthodox values, and it is Patriarch Kyrill, rather than the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople (regarded in this light as the Second Rome), who is the only legitimate leader of the Orthodox worldwide.¹¹⁶ Or to put it in other words, with reference to the conflict between the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Moscow Patriarchate, “Kyrill’s mobilization of a trans- and multi-national Russian World consolidated through the Moscow Patriarchate serves as a sober reminder that in practice, global Orthodoxy has two competing ‘ecumenical patriarchates’ in Constantinople and Moscow.”¹¹⁷

Commenting on the close and supposed indissoluble ties between all these parts and components of the notorious “Russian World” and highlighting their implications for the 2014 Donbas war and the annexation of Crimea (as well as for the current Russian invasion of Ukraine, I would add), Deacon Brandon Gallaher explains that following this “ethnophyletist ideology,” the division “of Russia from Ukraine is quite unnatural (hence the present spiritual and political crisis of the Russian Federation and the Moscow Patriarchate given its clash with Ukraine).” And he concludes, by criticizing the 2016 Havana Joint Declaration between Patriarch Kyrill and Pope Francis, that “the break between the two nations, the Joint Declaration claims, is not due to any external Russian aggression but fratricidal ‘hostility in Ukraine’ (§26: nothing is said about the annexation of Crimea in 2014 or the proxy war in Donbass in Eastern Ukraine).”¹¹⁸

Furthermore, and in light of the recent aggression and tragic developments, the place and role of the city of Kyiv and Ukraine in general in this theopolitical image is of crucial importance if we want to understand the ethnocultural character of the ideology of the “Russian World” but also recent events related to the Russian invasion of and war in Ukraine. Deacon Nicholas Denysenko remarks as follows:

Kyrill […] identifies the city of Kyiv and contemporary Ukraine as key agents on the Russian World strategy, equal to Moscow in the propagation of his Russian World. Kyrill refers to Kyiv as the “mother of Rus’ cities” […] that is now poised to become “one of the most important political and public centers of the Russian World.” The role of Kyiv and Ukraine is to vivify the ideal of ecumenical Orthodoxy by contributing to the development of Rus’ civilization. Kyrill clearly establishes the active agency of Kyiv and Ukraine in building the Russian World as opposed to being “locked in its nationalist cell.” Kyrill envisions Ukraine’s role by presenting a contradistinction between embracing all people through a Russian World and choosing isolation in nationalism through Orthodox ecclesiological vocabulary, as Ukraine is to “preserve Holy Orthodoxy and manifest in its life its all-peoples or ecumenical character – to be a home for many people.”¹¹⁹

Thus, according to the 2016 Havana Joint Declaration, the “Russian world” is regarded as an exemplary, holistic and providential Christian civilization that has experienced an “unprecedented renewal of Christian faith” after a long period under the communist atheist regime (§14). The Orthodox heritage and experience of the “first millennium of Christianity” (§4) ascribes to the Russian world a unique position of uninterrupted Christian witness in our modern world, which is characterized by the bold secularization of Western Europe. To the degree that Russia remains the last genuine Orthodox Christian civilization, it is a sort of God-inspired imperative to fight terrorism (§11), to protect Christian victims of violence in the Middle East and North Africa (§§8–11), and to support and cultivate peace, bring justice, and do everything one can to avoid a “new world war” (§11).¹²⁰

The “Russian world” ideology appears then to be a form of civilizational nationalism with a clearly Messianic character that includes a full-scale critique of human rights as well as active collaboration with the far-right.¹²¹ In accordance with this, only Russia and its Church can claim to be the guardian of the traditional Christian identity of the Christian East as well as of Europe, and only it can lead a confused West back to its senses with its teaching of the “Russian world.” That is why many in the Moscow Patriarchate see the West “as corrupt and having fallen away from the truths of its own original Christian identity. This corruption, some in the Moscow Patriarchate contend, can be seen in Western attacks on traditional Christianity and morality through its pervasive secularist and liberal humanist agenda,” promoting feminism, gender theory, homosexual rights in gay parades, globalization, and Christianophobia.¹²²

Over and against the West and those Orthodox who have fallen into schism and error (such as Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and other local Orthodox churches that support him) stands the Moscow Patriarchate, along with Vladimir Putin, as the true defenders of Orthodox teaching, which they view in terms of traditional morality, a rigorist and inflexible understanding of tradition, and veneration of Holy Russia.¹²³

It is hard not to see in all these actions and talks the influence and reasoning of the Russian philosopher and ideologist Alexander Dugin who serves as personal advisor of President Putin. Over against the failure of the three dominant political theories of the 20th century, i.e., capitalism, communism, and fascism, Dugin suggests inventing a fourth theory rooted in traditional spiritualities in order to face the future in a victorious way. So, according to this Russian thinker who is very close to Putin’s system of power, one has to guard against Western postmodernity, by force of arms, to preserve unconditionally the geopolitical sovereignty of the Eurasian continental powers: Russia, China, Iran, India, guarantors of the freedom of the people of the world. The very core of this Eurasian ideal is none other than Russkii Mir. Moscow is therefore, in Dugin’s view, the pivot of this continental fellowship/collectivity. Against this morbid West and all those who support it stands the Third Rome, a fortress of inflexible tradition, that of the Holy Russia and its people, guardian of an Orthodox truth that will determine “the salvation of every man,” according to the homily of Patriarch Kyrill at the cathedral church of Christ the Savior, in the Kremlin on Sunday 6 March 2022.¹²⁴

The war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the name of the Orthodox tradition during the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine did not remained theologically unaddressed. The barbarian acts justified theologically by Patriarch Kyrill (in his sermon of March 6, 2022, the Sunday of Forgiveness, the last Sunday before the beginning of the Great Lent in the Orthodox calendar) on the basis of the “Russian World” teaching (both the Patriarch and President Putin routinely justify the invasion of Ukraine on the basis of bringing it back into the fold of the “Russian world”), the Anti-Western rhetoric, and the appealing to the “metaphysical meaning of the war,” provoked strong reactions and emotion both among the Orthodox and Christians of other traditions, as well as religious and secular people. Far from condemning Russian aggression against Ukraine, the Russian Orthodox Church constantly repeats Kremlin propaganda about the invasion of Ukraine as a “special military operation” aimed at “de-nazistification,” and the protection of the break-away Donbas region of Ukraine against Ukrainian aggression and Western ideas, such as gay rights. All these concerns led a group of pioneering Eastern Orthodox Christian scholars around the world to unite with one voice in a sound “Declaration on the ‘Russian World’ (Russkii mir) Teaching” that denounces the religious ideology driving Vladimir Putin’s invasion and repudiating the Russian Patriarch’s support of the war in Ukraine. As noted in a relevant press release, over against this ideology, Orthodox scholars uphold the original teachings of Jesus in the New Testament and the writings of the church fathers. Among other things, the “Declaration” affirms:

That the church should not subject itself to the state or become an agent of the state for the promotion of geopolitical goals dictated by personal ambition or the assertion of superiority of one group over another, such as Russians over Ukrainians.

That love is the core of the Christian message and that engaging in war is the ultimate failure of Jesus’ commandment of love.

That Christians are called to be peacemakers, not warmongers, and to stand up for justice and to condemn injustice.

The “Declaration” of the Orthodox theologians did not fail to call to mind that “the principle of the ethnic organization of the Church was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 1872” and that “the false teaching of ethno-phyletism is the basis for the ‘Russian world’ ideology.” It also notes that “if we hold such false principles as valid, then the Orthodox Church ceases to be the Church of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Apostles, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Fathers of the Church.”

To date (6 April 2022), the “Declaration” has had over 130,000 views on different websites and social media; it has been published into 19 languages (English, Russian, Ukrainian, Greek, French, Italian, Romanian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Georgian, Arabic, Dutch, German, Finnish, Croatian, Estonian, Hungarian, Japanese, Polish), and has been signed by more than 1,300 individuals (bishops, priests, theologians, scholars, and ordinary faithful; the number of signatories rises every day) from all over the world (Russia itself included), from the north and the south, from the East and the West, from Europe and the Americas. Drawing on elements and schemata from two historic ecclesial texts, the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy” (843 AD), and the “Barmen Declaration” (1934), the “Declaration” of Orthodox theologians was prompt to express “universal Christian values” and has been signed not only by Orthodox but also by Christians of other traditions as the latter recognized it contained universal Christian truths.¹²⁵

Perhaps the most severe and radical critique of the “Russian World” comes from an Orthodox public intellectual from Lebanon, a place where traditionally – but especially since the Syrian war – the politico-religious influence of Russia has been strongly felt. It is not merely a condemnation but rather a warning against and in-depth analysis of the risks encountered by the prevalence of this ideology:

There is clearly a kind of messianism attested in this discourse on the “Russian World” and Russianity. Such an impulse has been running throughout the whole of Christian history for two thousand years. To realize the eschatological hope here below by means of a political project is not a new utopia. This hope is no longer that of the coming kingdom, that of the end of time. The kingdom is already here, realized in advance by the State of the Good, that of a sacred nation from a holy land. In such a view, there is no room for transcendence. Everything is immanence. How much blood has been spilled out in the name of the State of Good by a chosen people since biblical times. […] In the East and in the West, this utopia has never ceased to agitate minds. It is expressed in several forms, but its main characteristic is a homogenization of the chosen group to which every individual is subjected. The ideology of the Russian World is at the heart of Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory. Basically, behind all these considerations, we find the good old communist utopia of Marxism-Leninism that has not yet been eliminated from Russia. The vision of Dugin, Putin and Patriarch Kyrill is a Soviet communism with a thin veneer of purely formal Byzantine Orthodoxy, with no substance other than will and power politics.¹²⁶