A special issue of Religions.

Since the beginning of modernity, the relationship between art and religion has been a multifaceted one, characterized both by tensions and by productive exchanges.

One can claim that the modern concept of “art” (and the corresponding modern institution of art) has been one of the “secular religious” expressions of modernity. The language we have been employing to characterize the domain of “fine arts” and “aesthetic” experiences has been remarkably “religious.” We “meditate” in front of artworks; art allows us to experience a “spiritual” excitement; we make pilgrimages to see and venerate masterpieces in their (secular) sacred spaces (e.g., museums) that require a special decorum, inspiring the atmosphere of devotion.

This way (and following the lead provided by Walter Benjamin) we witness to an exchange between the “aura” of devotional (religious-aesthetic) objects, and the “aura” of (secular-religious) artworks. This exchange of “auratic” experiences can also be seen in switching the roles between traditional sacred spaces (churches) and modern (secular–sacred) museums: modernity turned museums into the places of silent warship of sacred objects (artworks), while churches became exhibition spaces, were most of the visitors go to see artworks, not to celebrate the Eucharist. Read More

This brief report should be read alongside Deacon Denysenko’s “The Promise of Autocephaly in Ukraine” and the “Statement of the Permanent Conference of Ukrainian Orthodox Bishops.” The irony of Metropolitan Hilarion’s declaration that “no Constantinople Patriarchate, no other Church can unilaterally declare autocephaly to this or that Church” will not be lost on our readers who recall the unilateral granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in America by the Moscow Patriarchate.

Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk

On April 19, Head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokalamsk [sic], expressed the position of the Russian Orthodox Church at Interfax-Religion regarding the appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople for the establishment of an Autocephalous Church in Ukraine.

“The creation of an autocephalous Church is a process that cannot be initiated by secular authorities, since, as is known, the Church in modern states is separated from the state, and the state must not manipulate the Church, including in the election struggle or in any other political goals. The whole concept of creating the one local church in Ukraine, separated from the Russian Orthodox Church, is based on the thesis that an independent state should have an independent church. If we acted on this principle, then, for example, the Alexandrian Church would have to be divided into fifty parts, since it embraces all of Africa, and in Africa, more than fifty states, the Antiochian Church should be divided into several parts, as well as the Church of Jerusalem, and so on. Such plans and ideas are beneficial only to the enemies of the Church,” says Metropolitan Hilarion.

According to him, “the church split in Ukraine over the past quarter century has gained momentum due to the support of secular authority and the legitimization of the split – there were no such precedents in the history of the Church. There were precedents for a return from the split of certain hierarchs, clerics, laity, groups, associations through repentance, and only such a way could be offered by the Orthodox Church.” Read More

In just over eight months since our official launch on August 22, we have achieved the unthinkable: 100,000 visitors from 147 countries. Our visitors have come from every country in North America and Europe, Australia, all but some half dozen countries in Asia, all but three or four countries in South America, almost half of the countries in Africa, and from the Phanar and the Vatican.

By “we” we mean first and foremost our tens of thousands of loyal readers around the world and our growing team of amazing writers—now more than 100. We editors are humbled by the realization that we do little more than provide the space for this to happen, and that none of this would be possible without each and every one of you readers and writers.

Please accept this expression of deepest gratitude from us at Orthodoxy in Dialogue. Celebrate this milestone with us in your hearts, for this is your milestone as much as ours as we work together to facilitate the free flow of ideas in the Orthodox Church. Let us give thanks to God for the unmerited blessing of serving Him and His holy Church in this labour. Let us ask His forgiveness for whatever errors in judgment we make along the way. Read More

Their religious roots, not their Communist experience, support authoritarianism and risk aversion.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity has done more to shape certain ex-Communist countries than communism. It also, some say, made their people relatively unhappy and anti-capitalist. This theory got a lot of play in 1990s Russia but has now resurfaced in a fresh World Bank working paper. 

Its authors, former Bulgarian finance minister Simeon Djankov and Elena Nikolova of University College London, analyzed data from the World Values Survey and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s Life in Transition Survey to study the correlation between religious background and attitudes. They concluded that Orthodoxy made certain countries fertile ground for communism and generally shaped their path as distinct from those taken by countries steeped in Western Christian traditions. They wrote: 

Western Christianity (which gave rise to Catholicism and Protestantism) placed emphasis on rationalism, logical exploration, individualism, and the questioning of established authorities. Eastern Christianity (from which Eastern Orthodoxy originated) was associated with mystical and experiential phenomena, was more affectionate and communitarian, and put less emphasis on law, reason and questioning authorities. Remarkably, these long-run attitudinal differences survived after nearly 50 years of communism.

Communist rulers weren’t church-friendly but, according to Djankov and Nikolova, they exploited the features of the Orthodox worldview that they found useful, such as the emphasis on tradition, communitarianism, “less reliance on legal exchanges” and a greater respect for authority. So the mindset shaped by the suppressed religion persisted, suppressing respect for the rule of law, iconoclasm,  creativity and innovation.   Read More