By the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Saint Vlasios, fr. Hierotheos Vlachos
Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries
This is a part from the article Capitalism as the offspring of Western Metaphysics
It
must be underlined that Orthodoxy – Romanity (Romanity = Byzantine Tradition & Culture) has
no affinity whatsoever to Protestant ethics - as
realistically presented by
Max Weber
with regard to the capitalist spirit - nor is it
expressed by Latin theology. For this reason, in
what follows, we will examine as briefly as
possible the views of the Orthodox Church on the
central positions underlined by
Max Weber.
We will underline five basic points, without
citing Patristic texts and related bibliography,
because in my other studies, there is ample
material.
a)
It is characteristic that the spirit of
Capitalism, i.e.. Capitalism as a system, was
not born in the East, in Romanity, but the West.
This is not unrelated to the theology and the
way of life that prevailed in these two areas.
In the Orthodox East there was no need to refute
the feudalist system with its racist
mentalitythe way this had prevailed in the West.
Apart from this, in the Orthodox East there
prevailed the teachings of the Fathers of the
Church on philotheia (the love of God)
and philanthropy (the love of
fellow-man), on kenosis (self-evacuating)
and sacrifice, on philotimo
(honourable reciprocation) and the sacrifice
of one’s rights. In other words, there was a
balanced social teaching, which was the fruit of
genuine Christology, ecclesiology and
anthropology. This social teaching was neither
created nor implemented as a system, but was
itself a way of life.
The par excellence centres of Romanity - where
they applied the genuine social teaching, which
was a result of the advent of the Grace of God
and the spiritual rebirth of man - were the
Monasteries. Within the confines of the
Monasteries, the community functioned in the
best possible manner, where the love of God and
our neighbour prevailed; where philautia
(self-love) was be repelled by ascetic labours.
The life of the Monasteries influenced the Roman
societies also; even the very palace.
Of
course, neither was Socialism born in the
Orthodox East; as we saw previously, even the
socialist system had been organised on
rationalist criteria and was subjugated to
bureaucracy and the entire mentality of a
man-centred system.
Indeed, Orthodoxy differs radically, both
Capitalism as well as Socialism, from a
philosophical, structural and organisational
point of view, since both these systems are
offspring of Western metaphysics. The social
teaching of Socialism is related to the social
teaching of Christianity, but we there are two
basic differences. The one difference is that
its implementation is achieved through
revolutions and laws and not with freedom and
love; the other difference is that Socialism, in
most of its manifestations, is linked to a
specific world theory and is thus an atheistic
ideology. Most certainly however, while
Orthodoxy may relate to Socialism from the
aspect of social teaching, it is nevertheless in
complete dialectic opposition to the spirit of
Capitalism.
Both Capitalism and Socialism are transferred
and imported systems. One could add here that
the Socialist theories infiltrated the Orthodox
East where Orthodoxy prevailed, because the
views on justice, equality, love etc. were
familiar here, years ago. Even today, the
theories of Socialism – Marxism are difficult to
prevail in the Western world, because the
individual prevails there. And in these
individualist perceptions, Capitalism
flourishes.
Consequently, Capitalism cannot fit into the
teaching and the way of life that prevails in
Romanity. It is the offspring of Western man and
is destined for him.
b)
Orthodoxy is not linked to metaphysics. We saw
in the previous analysis that the spirit of
Capitalism, as analysed by
Max Weber,
is very closely linked to the theory of
predestination, which is one of the
characteristic marks of metaphysics. Of course,
the term metaphysics includes many other
aspects that will not be analysed here.
We
could preferably say that Orthodoxy is
anti-metaphysical. The centre of Orthodox
anthropology is not the “orthos logos” (the
appropriate word, reasoning). Without abolishing
logic, Orthodoxy transcends it through a
revelation by God, which is beyond all reasoning
and not against reasoning.
The theory of predestination is rejected by the
theology of the Fathers of the Church. God does
not violate man’s freedom and those who wish can
become sons of God. In Orthodoxy there is no
“aristocracy of the pious”. When man follows a
specific method of therapy, he can even reach
the state of theoptia (the ‘sight’ of
God). Thus, he comes to know God, he acquires
selfless love and loves the entire world. Just
as medical science cannot be metaphysical, so
Orthodox theology cannot be metaphysical.
c)
The views of Orthodoxy on labour and profession
are also different to those of the Protestants.
The vast difference lies in the fact that
Protestants link the profession to Divine
Providence, to divine commandments, and
especially to the predestination. In Protestant
ethics, the profession, as well as the profit
that originates from it, all take place within
the framework of those saved by God. In
Orthodoxy, since we do not believe in an
predestination, it is to be expected that we do
not link the profession to this inhuman theory.
After all, even though labour may have its value
for man’s life in this world and can even be
regarded as a spiritual task when conducted
within genuine gnosiological and hesychastic
frames, it nonetheless does not relate to a
specialised profession. For example, medical
science cannot become a profession, nor can any
other humanitarian sciences; they are
incorporated within the perspective of
diaconia (ministering). We are all deacons
(ministers). Job professionalism, and especially
the mentality of professionalism, is linked to
profit, to the increase in production by any
means, to the exploitation of man and so many
other terrible things.
The view that the profession of each person is
predetermined by divine Providence is inhuman,
since it abolishes man’s freedom or makes him
even more audacious. Imagine what could happen
if the merchant, the manufacturer and in general
every businessman thought that their work was a
profession determined by God. In this case,
every kind of abuse, injustice and exploitation
would be justified. This is why labour does not
identify with the profession. After all, the
tradition of our land in rural societies and
communities and in the Monasteries has proved
that one can work and offer much, without
exercising a particular profession. But when man
is obliged to exercise a specialised profession,
he must perceive it as a labour that is
performed within the framework of philotheia
(love of God) and philanthropy (love of
fellow man).
After all, each man’s labour is not an end in
itself in his life. It is useful, essential, so
that he does not fall into akedia
(spiritual laxity), but also necessary for him
to feed those who are under his protection; but
it is not his sole purpose. It is
regarded as a gift from God, and should be
exercised eucharistically (in a spirit of
thanksgiving). Man’s objective is neither
justification, nor the reassurance of Grace
existing in his heart, but his theosis
(glorification).
d)
Orthodox ascesis does not aspire to the
fulfilment of our duties to God, or to the
reassurance that one belongs in the aristocracy
of the chosen, but to the liberation of our
nous (mind) from its subjugation to
creations.
In
opposition to rationalism, according to which
rational reason (orthos logos) is man’s
centre, Orthodoxy accepts that man’s centres are
two, nous (mind) and logos (word,
reason). The nous relates to God and the divine,
while the logos relates to our environment. When
the nous is enslaved by creations, man is
psychically, psychologically and spiritually
ill. The ascetic effort aspires to liberating
man’s nous from its subjection to logic, to
passions and the world that surrounds him. This
is achieved in Orthodox hesychasm.
Speaking of Orthodox hesychasm, we need to view
it from two perspectives. Firstly, that it is a
command of God. In other words, the commands of
God do not only refer only to external works for
the performance of one’s duty, but also to inner
cleanliness, nepsis, hesychia etc.
Secondly, Orthodox hesychasm is not possible
within a climate of individualism. Because he
has freed himself of existential and internal
tyrannies, the hesychast is the par excellence
free, genuine person, who loves all people
truly.
Consequently, Orthodox hesychia (quiet)
is closely connected to man’s therapy, and from
the aspect of methodology it resembles modern
psychiatry. We say “from the aspect of
methodology” because there is a great difference
between the two from the perspective of ontology
and anthropology. In any case, no one can blame
a psychoanalyst that with his effort, with the
psychotherapy that he practises, he is not
performing any social activity, or that he views
man as isolated. On the contrary, one praises
him because the psychoanalyst helps the already
distant and antisocial person to learn how to
confront other people and society in a proper
manner, by healing his dysfunctional
personality. The same and much more holds true
for orthodox hesychia (quiet). Through hesychia,
man discards his anti-social manner and becomes
genuinely social; he cures his individualism and
thus, in place of selfish love, he now acquires
selfless love.
Orthodoxy similarly views both wealth and
material goods in general within this
perspective. It does not confront them
idolatrously or manichaeically; that is to say,
it neither worships nr rejects them. When man is
spiritually complete and takes the proper stance
towards them, he sees no regenerative power and
value in money; he is not interested in using
methods and ways of reproducing money. To him,
offering, sacrifice, kenosis, or denying his own
rights have a greater value.
Orthodox ascesis does not aspire to any state of
blissfulness (eudaemonia), whether
idealistic or materialistic. Idealistic bliss is
dominated by the soul’s return to the world of
ideas, while the materialistic bliss is
dominated by the enjoyment of material goods in
this life. In fact, Orthodox ascesis cures man
from such bliss-oriented tendencies.
Also, in Orthodoxy we are not overcome by the
obsession of accomplishing a duty. Western
morality has taught us to speak of “our duties
to God, to our neighbour and to ourselves”. We
learned to speak of man’s natural course. Love
is not a duty, nor can it be confined to this
notion; it is the natural state of man. The lack
of love is nothing more than the deviated course
of man’s psychic (soul-related) powers.
e)
Of course, there may be baptised Orthodox who
are discerned in their lives by the Protestant
morality and the spirit of Capitalism, and who
belong to the category of the people analysed by
Max Weber.
These however are not genuine Orthodox
Christians; they are not permeated by the
atmosphere of Orthodox Tradition; they are not
Romans, but Vaticanising and Protestantising
Orthodox.
The fact is that when we want to be informed
about the life of the Church, we must approach
those who breathe inside Her atmosphere; those
who swim inside Her life-flowing river and who
do not sink into stagnant and polluted waters,
nor remain on the banks of the river.
Orthodoxy bears no relation to Protestant ethics
or to the spirit of Capitalism. It has an entire
life that is a transcending of all created
realities; of deterioration and even of death
itself.
See also
The medieval West with its so-called “Catholic Church” or “Roman
Catholic Church” had already excised itself from its ancient, authentic roots –
which were in fact Orthodox – and had succumbed to the dominance of heresy.
Luther had attempted to confront this heresy of the Papacy, but he
unfortunately distanced himself even more from those ancient, authentic roots
of the One Church.
