“For the Life of the World: Toward a Social Ethos of the Orthodox Church”

Abstract

“For the Life of the World: Toward a Social Ethos of the Orthodox Church” Carrie Frederick Frost and Nadieszda Kizenko INTRODUCTIONS Several years ago, I was honored by the invitation to join the Special Commission of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to draft the document “For the Life of the World: Toward a Social Ethos of the Orthodox Church” (FLOW), which was published in 2020. The title sums up the aspirations of the document: it is “for the life of the world,” a phrase that suggests both scripture and liturgy, anchoring FLOW in the life of Jesus Christ and the celebration of our communion with him in the Eucharist. The title of Father Alexander Schmemann’s much beloved work of sacramental theology, For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy, will also come to mind, and FLOW follows in the lineage of Schme-mann in his deep love of Orthodoxy and his hopeful conviction that the church is “for the life of the world.” The preposition “toward” in the title is deliberate. FLOW is meant to provide a means for the Orthodox Church to consider both social issues that endure and social issues unique to our era, but not an end, not a final word. “Toward” also acknowledges there is more work to be done and includes the hope that FLOW may inspire important conversations. Finally, the word “ethos” tells us this document seeks to convey the spirit of the Orthodox Church, which is quite different from issuing doctrine. To be clear, the document does not dither in its discussions of social issues, but it does promote discernment instead of offering dictates. I greatly enjoyed my role in drafting FLOW, and now it is equally engaging to witness its reception inside and outside the Orthodox Church. I am especially interested in critical engagements with the document; it is—as described—not meant to [End Page 119] be complete, and it is imperfect. I understand the ethos of FLOW itself as an invitation to engage with it, whether that be to object to aspects, to develop and run with its lines of thinking, to expose possible contradictions, or to want more from it. In this spirit, I invited Nadieszda Kizenko to coedit a symposium on FLOW for the Journal of Orthodox Christian Studies. With appreciation for Nadia and all the contributors, her introduction and the symposium essays follow. Carrie Frederick Frost Book Reviews Editor, Journal of Orthodox Christian Studies ________ Our goal in assembling this symposium was to have a variety of perspectives from a variety of disciplines. We are glad to have just that. Theology, religious studies, ecumenical relations, history, and peace studies are all represented, as are diverse geographic backgrounds and traditions (Georgia, Germany, North America, United Kingdom, Romania, Russia, Ukraine). As a result of the contributions that follow, we now see FLOW with clearer and more nuanced eyes. Most of the contributors note the sunny, outward-facing title. “For the Life of the World” is what nineteenth-century Russian writers might call “an offering to contemporary theology.” This means contemporary theology writ large. Reflecting the engagement of the Orthodox Churches in ecumenical relations for many decades and the experience of writers who live in global, pluralistic societies, it is the kind of document that Orthodox have not previously tended to produce: a position paper saying, “This is what we believe,” aimed both within and outside the bounds of the Orthodox community. Grdzelidze appreciatively cites the document’s human-rights emphasis. Bordeianu and Cohen wish the ecumenical outreach was greater, whether in the areas of intercommunion for mixed Catholic-Orthodox marriages or in a more conscious “exchange of gifts,” as Cohen writes, with the Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. (One wonders, though, whether FLOW really is “comparable [or superior] to any of the texts produced at the Second Vatican Council” [my emphasis]: for all its merits, I am not sure that we are in the league of Gaudium et spes.) Elsner and Lozova, by contrast, favorably compare FLOW to its predecessor, the “Basis of the Social Concept” (BOSC), produced by the Russian Orthodox Church (and, as Lozova notes, essentially reproduced by the Kyivan Patriarchate...

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.