Writing in the Christian Science Monitor, a Russian Orthodox believer says that Orthodoxy has a lot to offer Europe. Excerpt:
In the current expansion eastward, however, it is inevitable that the values and mores of European institutions and alliances will be shaped more and more by the traditionalist views of Orthodox Christian believers and less and less by the modern, secularized Protestant assumptions of Western European democracies. Orthodox believers already far outnumber Protestants across Europe, and by some estimates they may eventually even surpass Roman Catholics. If 21st-century Europe ever develops a religious complexion, it will be predominantly Eastern Orthodox.In the long run, therefore, while the greatest challenge to Europe's cultural and political identity may come from the growth of Islam, its more immediate challenge is how to deal with some 40 million to 140 million Orthodox Christians who, when given a voice in European policymaking, will argue that churches should have a more prominent voice than heretofore in the shaping of social policy.
There are two ways of dealing with this challenge. One way is to stick to a narrow definition of "the West." Make modern-day secularism the gold standard of democracy and decry all challenges to secularism as examples of a "values gap" between East and West. This tried and true formula has the advantage of already being familiar, thanks to the cold war. Unfortunately, it is also a recipe for a conflict within European institutions. And, given the rapidly growing numbers, influence, and wealth of the Orthodox Churches of Eastern Europe, it is a conflict Western Europeans are likely to lose.
Another way is to expand the definition of what is "Western" through dialogue with Orthodox Christians. The goal of such a dialogue would be to stress the common roots that bind various religious traditions, to encourage models of tolerance that do not presume secularism, and the different ways to balance the disparate roles of church and state, while avoiding total estrangement of one from the other.
Such a dialogue would allow Europe to build a new foundation for East-West relations that is based on the common Greco-Roman and Christian heritages.
Maybe so. Hope so. There's a much greater openness from the Russian Orthodox to Pope Benedict than to fellow Slav John Paul. Still, I'm skeptical, because there's a lot to overcome. For one thing, Europe's secular elites are so allergic to Christianity that they can barely bring themselves to acknowledge its existence -- Catholic and Protestant -- in their own heritage. Secondly, in parts of Europe, criticizing homosexuality from a traditional Christian perspective is tantamount to a hate crime; I can't believe they'll be all that open to Orthodoxy, given that the Russian patriarch just caught hell for speaking out against homosexuality in a European governmental meeting earlier this month. I read something the other day -- but can't find it on the Internet for some reason -- quoting the Russian patriarch rejecting Western ideas about the separation of church and state. Besides which, the Orthodox have their own serious internal problems to deal with.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Nathaniel Davis, in "A Long Walk to Church," put the percentage of Russian Orthodox who actually practice their faith (as apart from nominal baptism) at something like 2-3%.
I think the Eastern Catholics have a much better track record in the post-Soviet east because they kept their integrity and suffered greatly for their faith. Their bishops and priests were murdered and their churches forcibly turned over to the Orthodox, but when the Iron Curtain fell the Eastern Catholic churches were reborn with vigor. Moscow's response: to compain that Rome's support of the Eastern Catholic churches is "proselytism" on their "canonical territory." Never mind that the Orthodox have no qualms about setting up dioceses in the Catholic west!
sec·u·lar·ism (sĕk'yə-lə-rĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.
1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
Which definition are you using M_David?
M-David,
I see evidence of religion growing in the third world but not in the first world. Also, you can't simply go by numbers. Sure, the Catholic Church continues to grow in terms of numbers, but that is because the Catholic Church counts membership in terms of baptisms (as does the Orthoox Church). What percentage of these baptized folks are actually attending Church? I bet it's not that high.
Whether secularization causes the first world countries to implode is a separate issue. Even if this does happen, that doesn't mean that people are going to turn back to serious commitment to religion. And I think that once the third world becomes westernized & modernized, we will see religion wane there as well, even in Muslim countries.
I think what you will find worldwide are pockets of serious commitment to religion and spirituality. But, for the most part, you will find a fairly secularized consumer-driven public.
the Catholic Church counts membership in terms of baptisms (as does the Orthoox Church). What percentage of these baptized folks are actually attending Church? I bet it's not that high.
While it's true that the Catholic Church considers each baptized person a Catholic at the most basic level, the membership numbers reported by the Church usually have a different basis. In the U.S., I believe the reported numbers are based on registered members of parishes.
If so, that would certainly include significant numbers of lapsed Catholics. But that would be offset by the exclusion of a similarly large number of regular Mass-goers who never take the time or trouble to register formally with a parish.
I don't know what Orthodox numbers are based on, but the Orthodox churches I am familiar with all have a concept of "membership" in the parish, which involves some act of joining a particular parish, not simply baptism.
Ultimately, of course, the significance of religious sentiment and belief cannot be measured in numbers, since people have varying and even conflicting reasons for stating their adherence to a particular church or other religious group.
Think of a Russian who has never been baptized and rarely visits a Church but prays often through icons of Christ or the Theotokos: Is he "Orthodox"? Technically not, but that doesn't exactly make him irreligious either. And that may be one of the larger religious groups in the Russian population.
Also, sensible people should greet religious membership numbers with a high degree of skepticism. At best they are based on telephone surveys of a few hundred people. At worst, they are pure propaganda, based on nothing at all. To take one hot button example: the numbers frequently repeated in the media for Muslims (both for the U.S. and worldwide), don't really add up and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. But those inflated numbers serve the interests of both promoters and sharp critics of Islam, so they casually repeated and rarely challenged.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.