On Salvation Outside Orthodoxy

 On Salvation Outside Orthodoxy:

Thoughts on the Article, “Ecumenoclasm: Who Can be Saved?”

~ An email excerpt from Bishop Chrysostomos, Metropolitan Emeritus of Etna ~  

The argument in the article that you sent me* establishes an artificial dichotomy, sets up the “straw man” of Orthodox traditionalism, and then, under the guise of “theology,” argues that we traditionalists limit the Providence of God and preach a restrictive soteriology. It is well done, but it is nonetheless an inadequate and very slanted approach to an Orthodox understanding of the Church and salvation. Nor is it a wholly accurate argument. The reference to Father Georges Florovsky’s view of Grace outside the Church is selective, overstated, drawn from some of his early speculative theology (in particular an article that he wrote, in his early years of theological formation, on St. Augustine’s view on this matter), and countered by many of Father Florovsky’s later views on the subject, which we have printed repeatedly in Orthodox Tradition.

In fact, in pointing out that the Orthodox Church is the Church established by Christ and that salvation outside Christ and outside the Church is not possible, we are speaking ecclesiologically, from within the consensus of the holy Fathers, in defense of the exactitude of Patristic teaching, and in a spirit that cannot be reduced to a simplistic argument that excludes the ineffable and unknowable aspect of God’s Economy. When addressing what the Church does make known to us, as we are called ultimately to do, all genuine Orthodox must courageously say that we indeed have the Truth that was given by Christ, preached by the Apostles, preserved by the Fathers, and—to add something essential to that Patristic axiom—preserved in its fullness, a fullness that defines Truth and Grace, solely within Orthodoxy.

The argument that there are truths derived from the Truth, that there are relative truths, and that God honors the beliefs of His own creatures, as long as they are sincere, is something disallowed by our ecclesiological principles. It is ours to preach Christ Resurrected; the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church, as the source of man’s salvation, enlightenment, and union with God by Grace; and to embrace our Faith within a “theology of facts,” as Father Florovsky expresses this notion (using a Patristic expression), that is experiential and confirmed inwardly. Our Holy Tradition is nothing less than a confirmation or verification of this theology of facts, and it has always been our belief that those who seek God will ultimately find Orthodoxy, experience its Truth, and confirm it as singular and unique, not by claims and arguments, but by inner revelation and in their hearts. The entire process of grasping the mystical identity of the One Church is inseparable from the salvation that it assures us.

Is what I have said really so restrictive and troublesome? If we were chemists, we would be teaching all of the empirical truths of the science of chemistry, setting forth traditional protocols for effecting chemical reactions, and clearly putting forth chemistry as an established and unique science. We might discuss alchemy, but we would point out that, even when it adventitiously produces certain chemical effects, it is not part of scientific chemistry. While we might not deny these effects and the fact that some of them reflect the efficacy of certain scientific laws, we would not, however, teach chemistry by incorporating alchemy into the curriculum of our chemistry departments. That would be inconsistent with the self-identity of chemistry and the empirical facts that define it as a science. Alchemy is not a science or a way of achieving what chemistry achieves. No chemist approaching alchemy in this way, would be accused of bigotry or narrow-mindedness or scientific fundamentalism.

However, when we Orthodox traditionalists approach ecclesiology in this very same way, we are berated, criticized, and often dismissed with vulgar epithets. It is assumed that we are attacking what is outside the domain of the exclusivity of Orthodoxy, thereby denying that there is any content whatever to various religions and denying the Providence of God. We teach clearly and without dilution what the Church directs us to teach, and nothing more. We are not guilty of some deficit simply because we do not explore subjects that do not concern us. Let the speculators establish contradiction through false dichotomies. As for us, we simply express what Orthodoxy is.  Just as a chemist would not teach chemistry with reference to alchemy, even if he does not deny the efficacy of scientific laws, so we do not preach Orthodoxy with reference to what is inconsistent or not in concord with its revealed Truth, even if we do not deny the Providence of God, albeit acknowledging that it is not ours to know.

I admit that various extremists and self-appointed traditionalists fruitlessly demand firm answers as to where Grace is and is not, occupy themselves with determining who is and is not a heretic, and consider these pursuits consistent with the defense of dogma. Such individuals actually hurt the Church, since they speak of matters out of ignorance of its actual theology and ethos. They are simply the flip side, in some ways, of a coin sporting the loose theology and ecclesiology of the ecumenists. They create the impression that knowing and teaching an exclusive Truth is somehow motivated by a desire to denigrate, condemn, smoke out, and destroy heretics. Hence, they give ammunition to the ecumenists, often doing so because, in their spiritual immaturity or prideful delusion, they are fond of proclaiming that they are better than others or have an exclusive Truth that somehow enhances them personally. (The truth actually comes at the cost of the ego and our humble submission to God. The true-believing man does not revel in declaring others wrong, but feels love in his heart for them. He sees and feels his madness with love for others, wishing for them what he does feel that he himself has. From within the Truth, one is diminished, not inflated!)

All forms of extremism, self-righteous personal triumphalism, and hatred are foreign to the spirit of the Church and of the Fathers. When the Fathers draw distinctions between Truth and what deviates from it, it is for the protection of the Faithful. But they pursue this end with love. These distinctions are also drawn to call others to the pristine criterion of Truth that Orthodoxy is, so that they can, in fact, find salvation. Our exclusivity is not meant to condemn others, but to protect the elect and to call those in error into what is correct. We are guardians of what actually belongs to all mankind: guardians of the Light that enlightens every man or woman who comes into the world. We are not about loudly proclaiming who has Grace and who can be saved; we are about living in Grace, lovingly calling others to it, and hoping for the salvation of our fellow man. In this whole process, we protect the Truth because we know its force and wish to share it with all mankind. This is the goal of evangelizing.

It is the ecumenists, who want to equate Orthodoxy with heterodox religious groups and confessions, who defile the Faith by leading others to remain where they are and encouraging them to cease their search for the fullness of Truth that is Orthodoxy. If the extremists, those unwise in misguided zeal, damage our Orthodox traditionalism, the Orthodox ecumenists, in turn, simply neutralize and render meaningless our claim to preserve original Christianity. They relativize the Truth, accuse us of things that we do not believe, exploit the extremists by presenting them as spokesman for our traditionalism, and quite dishonestly hold forth as our judges, on account of some sort of worldly “officialdom.” We, rather, rest our case on Truth itself, which is by its nature infallible and complete, lacking nothing, and canonical in the Orthodox sense of that word: containing the living (and lived) standard or criterion of all that is true.

In a sense, Orthodoxy, the Royal Path, stands between the way of extremist zeal, which is sometimes sincere but mired in wholly unenlightened “religious passion” (in Orthodoxy, of all places, which aims at impassion!), and the way of today’s ecumenical syncretism, which, I must sadly say, eventually—however sincere some of its advocates may be—ends up in the chicanery of the ways of the world, since it is inspired by the worst aspects of humanism, by unbridled liberalism, fanciful utopian visions, and a syncretism that attacks Truth at its core by denying it.

* On Ecumenoclasm: Who Can Be Saved?, by Paul Ladouceur, published on the website of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center of Fordham University (https://publicorthodoxy.org/2016/05/20/on-ecumenoclasm-who-can-be-saved/). Dr. Ladouceur is a well-known critic of traditionalist Orthodox thought.

Note: A Bulgarian translation of the above email is published on the website of the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria at:

https://bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/rr/lode/Chrysostomos/salvation.html.