*3.3. A "Third Way": Reconciliation between Tradition and Modernity*

Between the secularists and the traditionalists, there are those who seek a compromise or middle ground between faith and science, between "receiving Christ in the Eucharist and taking a reasonable and 'worldly' precaution", as they put it (Cohen 2020). These actors, mostly of a younger generation of theologians, possess significant intellectual capital evidenced in academic titles, positions in universities, and publications in wellregarded journals. They hold progressive positions on various theological and church issues, motivated by a desire to bring Orthodoxy into a constructive relationship with the multicultural, global, and democratic contexts of modernity (Kessareas 2022b, pp. 133–37; Makrides 2020). As Pantelis Kalaitzidis, Director of the Volos Academy for Theological Studies in Greece and representative of this current, describes it, they seek to "contextualize the message of the Gospel in our time, to ensure the constructive role of Orthodoxy in the

public sphere, and to highlight the prophetic and eschatological dynamic of the Orthodox Christian tradition in the dialogue with the anthropological, political, and other parameters of (Western) modernity" (Kalaitzidis 2022). These religious actors reject both the so-called "ethnodoxy" (Karpov et al. 2012) that is the identification of religion with a particular nation, and the equation of secularization with the privatization of religion; for them, the Church can play a productive role in civil society by supporting core values of Christianity and of liberal democracy (e.g., justice, freedom) without violating the alterity of the "Other" (Kessareas 2022c).

On the controversy over the method of distribution of Holy Communion during the pandemic, individuals representative of "the third way" attempted to offer a compromise solution between the traditional "medicine of immortality" perspective and the medical logic underlying the imposition of health measures. More precisely, they distinguished between the inner essence and the external method of the Holy Communion ritual. The first component is construed as sacred and unchangeable, functioning as "medicine of immortality". The second is perceived as an historical element and event that can be changed. To justify this interpretation, these thinkers employed a set of arguments from theology, physics, and history. Specifically, they argued that since both the bread and the wine continue to retain their material qualities in the Eucharist, they could become pathways of transmission for pathogenic bacteria (Hovorun 2020; Cohen 2020). They refuted opposing viewpoints by labeling them as "distortions/heresies", "myth and superstition", "idolatry", "magical understandings of religious life", and "Manichaeism" (Arida 2020; Papathanasiou 2020; Hovorun 2020). Advocates of "the Third Way" thus accused their opponents of transforming religion into pure magic by spiritualizing the Eucharist. In sharp contrast, they invoked core values of modern thought, including "freedom of choice" and the physical "laws of nature" to ground their claims (Hovorun 2020).

From the standpoint of the traditionalists, the real heretics are the liberal theologians who downgrade the mystical meaning of the Eucharist. Although the bread and wine retain their physical qualities—as the traditional argument goes—their "mode of being" changes during the Mystery, becoming the actual Body and Blood of Christ (Koutloumousianos 2020; Hierotheos 2020). The fear is that the denial of this fundamental axiom of faith calls into question the saving power of Christ and so must be emphatically condemned as a "blasphemous theological virus" (Hierotheos 2020, p. 2). To conservative traditionalists, religious reformers pose a more serious threat than secularists, because they attribute to their ends the same theological concepts that are recognized by and can appeal to the faithful. Speaking sociologically, they are direct antagonists within the religious field.

The proponents of "the third way" also employed church history and historical practices as useful resources in constructing their position, highlighting the "dynamic nature of historical Eucharistic practices", namely, various ways of offering Communion throughout history, and the evidence of embracing "flexibility and adaptability" during times of crisis (Armanios 2020). For these moderates, the non-core elements of tradition can change according to historical conditions and contextual needs of the faithful. The call is for a method of Holy Communion that respects its theological integrity but is consistent as well with the medical instructions and the basic hygienic rules of modern society. In order to rebut charges of implementing changes under pressure from secular modernity, they framed their proposals in overtly theological language. For instance, they presented the use of disposable bamboo spoons or even the deprivation of Holy Communion during the pandemic as serving the most fundamental Christian values of "sacrifice" and of "love" for the fellow Christian, who will thereby be able to participate without any fear in or risk from the Eucharist (Roosien 2020; Cohen 2020).

The question must then be asked: does this middle-ground or "Third Way" approach manage to balance the commitments and interests of the two opposing sides? No doubt, it combines elements from both sides. Still, the basic aim of these moderating actors, which is to bring the Orthodox Church into a constructive relationship with modernity, moves the terms of the debate towards the side of secular-minded agents, even though these church moderates do not share with the secularists the vision of a privatized faith. This is also the reason why religious hardliners oppose liberal theologians so strongly. Liberal theologians critically reflect on tradition, embracing fundamental values and structural transformations of the modern world (e.g., human rights, civil society, multiculturalism). Of course, when they also hold an ecclesiastical office in the Church, the tensions between traditional beliefs and the spirit of intellectualist criticism inherent in any reform agenda increases significantly. Overall, therefore, we can interpret the middle way identified here as an attempt at reaching a compromise between the competing views and goals of the two opposing sides.

## **4. Sacred Tradition vs. Profane Worldliness**

Despite the seriousness of the pandemic, which resulted in significant deaths among clerics and monks, Church authorities were hesitant to implement changes in the procedure for the reception of Holy Communion. As noted earlier, the Orthodox Church of Greece excluded *a priori* the possibility of any change by declaring the issue a "red line". The Orthodox Church of Serbia even banned a priest and theologian from speaking publicly after his critical remarks on the current mode of distribution (Kubat 2020). Yet, there were a few exceptions, mostly by Churches that operate in multicultural environments, where the pressure for a change in the existing practice of Holy Communion seems to have been significant. Even in such cases, however, the relevant decision was taken very carefully and in an ambiguous manner. Let me give some examples.

The Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Austria decided, for a "limited period", to offer the Eucharistic bread in the hand of the believers. It framed this decision as an act of "philanthropy" towards the "expectations of the outsiders" who have weak faith. Moreover, it presented this change to be within the boundaries of tradition, for it follows the old liturgical tradition of Saint James (Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Austria 2020). Archbishop Melchisedek of Pittsburgh of the Orthodox Church in America offered a double justification for the use of individual spoons: first, there was the need to avoid accusations "from those outside of the church" who do not understand the holy character of its rituals. Second, it was important to be able to "ease the conscience of those in the church" who are anxious about receiving Holy Communion from a common spoon during a pandemic. He, too, was cautious enough to highlight that this change was "not to be understood as a declaration about the possibility of the Body and Blood of Christ spreading disease" (Melchisedek 2020).

Archbishop Elpidophoros of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America justified the implementation in the Church of various public health measures against the COVID-19 with reference to "science and our God-given reason" as well as to theology: "the same material elements that can convey the blessings of God are also subject to the broken nature of our fallen world". In an attempt to rebut accusations of modernism, he stressed that the protective measures are "temporary precautions" that "do not change the traditions of the church" (Elpidophoros 2020a). The restrictive COVID-19 measures were presented as an "act of love and responsibility" and not as "a sin" (Holy Eparchial Synod 2020). Despite Elpidophoros' emphasis on exercising the "rational, scientific knowledge that we possess through our God-given intelligence" (Elpidophoros 2020b), the clergy were instructed to distribute the Eucharist in the usual way (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America 2020). The theological argument was that the "sacrament of sacraments, the Holy Eucharist, is not simply a material element but the very body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Elpidophoros 2020a).

How can we best understand the difficulty faced by Orthodox Churches to accept changes to how the Eucharist is administered in the face of the risks manifest in the COVID-19? The answer to this question must account for the central position and role of tradition in Greek Orthodox Christianity, in which the Church has developed a strong tradition-bound culture through its centuries of existence. It is a product of history that, when perceived in an essentialist and static manner, provides fertile ground for attitudes of traditionalism and

invariant liturgical practices (Makrides 2012a). Tradition consists both of dogmatic beliefs and practices, whose alleged sacred origin and repetition in the lifetime of the faithful makes them appear as unchanging entities. For the traditionalists, the institutional Church has legitimate responsibility to observe the adherence to the "right" beliefs (orthodoxy) and "correct" practices (orthopraxy) that shape its identity. However, you cannot have "orthodoxy" without "heresy", and vice versa. Since Orthodoxy is equated with the maintenance of tradition, any change runs the risk of being considered as heterodoxy or heresy. This attitude characterizes especially zealotic monastic circles who believe in the absolute and timeless essence of tradition: "the dogmas, the holy canons and traditions of the church ... by no means change with the passing of time, but they remain valid and unchanged until the end of the ages" (*Agios Agathaggelos Esfigmenitis* 2003, p. 4).

Of course, renewal and innovation are not unknown within the Greek Orthodox tradition (Willert and Molokotos-Liederman 2012; Makrides 2012a). The evolving economic activities and modernization of the Greek Orthodox churches currently taking place in even the most important symbolic contexts of the tradition, including among monastic communities of Mount Athos, are prime examples of this trend. However, in religious environments customarily characterized by dogma and repetition of the familiar, change occurs in a slower rhythm and always must be framed in the language of tradition in order to avoid the specter of heresy. Moreover, in this community, changes are more easily accepted when they concern external matters (e.g., technological ones) rather than issues of religious belief and practice.

The Eucharist is one such fundamental ritual. It remains "the sacrament of sacraments" for most Greek Orthodox Christians, a pivotal moment during which the individual believers *become* a community, experiencing "here and now" the relational essence of God (Elpidophoros 2020a; Zizioulas 1997, p. 115). From this perspective, the congregation does not merely come in contact "with the supreme source of its spiritual life" (Durkheim 1995, p. 30), but—by receiving the body and blood of Christ—it partakes of the sacred life that comes from the otherworld. Thus, in the critical moment of eucharistic celebration, the realms of "the immanent" and "the transcendent" meet but not on equal terms; it is transcendence that charismatically raises the elements of the mundane world to a higher level.

For conservative religious agents, the transformation of the common bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is not merely a symbolic act, but a real event. It is considered to stand above reason, for it perceived as a product of miraculous action:

It is clearly a matter of faith and metaphysical inductive proof [αναγωγή*ς*]. Is it possible to contract a psychosomatic disease from partaking of the Holy Communion? This is not possible. The believer, who comes to Holy Communion, believes that he/she comes to God, who has the power to heal, anticipate, and intervene miraculously. There is no need for someone to receive communion if s/he has not the faith that this is the blood and body of Christ. This cannot be a cause of disease and transmit any microbe! (Seraphim 2020)

This mode of religious thought classifies the various microbes and diseases as part of a profane realm. We occupy a world of decay, corruption, and death. By complete contrast, the sacred realm is believed to be the source of eternal life. Any extraordinary action that brings the two realms into contact with each other—a divine intervention into the profane world that transfigures its natural laws, including the conditions of human existence (illnesses etc.)—is recognized to be a miracle. Recognizing such miracles when they present themselves presupposes human faith *and* participation in the ecclesiastical life. The church thus emerges as the *locus* of the manifestation of the divine itself, the place where miracles, healing, and salvation happen. For this reason, it is difficult for deeply traditional Greek Orthodox believers to accept that their churches can be sources of infection, particularly during the eucharistic ritual. For them, such transmission can certainly occur "outside", in the profane space of everyday life, but not "inside" the temple of God, which is consecrated ground and where the faithful participate in the eternal life of God. Metropolitan of Aitolia and Akarnania Kosmas, who died in early January 2022 from COVID-19, declared in a sermon: "My fellow men, God does not permit you to be infected within the church. God does not infect! ... [The church] is a holy place; 'the church is sky', says saint Kosmas Aitolos. It is God's sanctuary" (Kosmas 2020). Likewise, a Greek archimandrite-psychiatrist expressed this spatial demarcation in his own sermon:

Our people are imprisoned *outside* the church [building] ... We even put disinfectants *inside* the church ... There are priests who offer Holy Communion *out of* the church, the antidoron [blessed bread] *outside* the church. We have exiled the blessings of the church, namely we have taken them *out of* the church as if the church is a dangerous and contaminated place ... We reached a point where in our country, in Greece, our belief, our religion is persecuted. This is not a coronavirus; it is a devil-virus ... The person who is talking to you at the moment is a doctor; we also know something about medicine. (Stylianakis 2020, italics mine)

This last reference would not have seemed at all odd to Stylianakis's religious audience, even if the priest had not studied medicine. Just as the church is considered to be a "hospital" for the soul and for the body, providing the "medicine of immortality", the priest is a "doctor" and an agent of God's spiritual healing. For the religious conservatives, even wearing a mask inside the church is inevitably construed as a sinful act; it signifies a lack of trust in the sacredness of the church's space. It is only through religious means (e.g., faith, prayer, sacraments), and not through human created technologies such as masks, that genuine protection is assured:

It is wrong and a lie what some people say: 'wear the mask, because you have to protect others'. I pray for others to protect them. When a person enters the church and does not respect the holy things of the church, then s/he is not protected no matter how many masks s/he wears. When you come and fear the Holy Communion, [or] you are afraid of the spoon, when you go to worship the icon and you are afraid of getting infected, it is then that you get infected. (Stylianakis 2020)

For conservatives, it is God and the saints, as bearers of authentic charisma, who define this space, not specialists of other fields, such as politicians or doctors. Thus, the real power of the priests is concealed behind the mantle of God and the saints. Since, following Weber, the prophetic charisma is transformed into office charisma it is the priest who defines and controls the sacred space (Weber 1978, pp. 1139–41, 1164–66):

Specialists of all kinds can provide an opinion only for the narrow domain of their specialization. As to the existential matters of human vindication and salvation, only the saints are competent to respond. Due to their personal struggle, they enjoy already from this life the eternity through the communion and unity with Christ. (Damaskinos 2021)

It is important to note that for these religious actors, faith and science are not viewed in opposition to each other. Rather, the two are related hierarchically. Faith is the broader category (for it leads to eternal life), *encompassing* the truth claims of human science. The principles and axioms of the latter are accepted *as long as* they do not attempt to usurp or question the fundamental assumptions of faith. Any attempt of reversing this hierarchy is condemned as blasphemy, for the partiality and imperfectness of human knowledge (science) cannot replace the catholicity of the sacred (mystical revelation). This is perceived as a "red line", a sacred prohibition.

The proponents of the middle-path have elaborated an alternative proposal based on the distinction between the inner essence and the external form of the ritual. In this way, they have attempted to reconcile faith with modernity, which historically has been a point of grave difficulty for Orthodox Christianity (Makrides 2012b). Their proposal is in accordance with what they perceive to be the demands of contemporary life. Casting such contemporary claims as a necessary guide for shaping the religious life of the Orthodox communion is also its weak point, and one that hinders its acceptance by the traditionalists. This is mainly because the proposed middle way is itself a product of modernity, asserting a licit version of Orthodoxy that has already come to terms with western modernity (e.g., functional differentiation, pluralism, individualism). However, Orthodoxy's constructive engagement with modernity has not yet been fully achieved. Many religious actors view the Greek Orthodox tradition at once as holistic and a reality in which there is an organic unity between nation and faith and between form and content. By contrast, secularists and religious reformers criticize the nationalization of religion as a heresy and the mechanistic adherence to the existing method of distributing Holy Communion as a mere formalism that fails to respond to the anxieties—and the authentic needs—of modern believers. To strengthen their attack against an essentialist perception of tradition, these actors highlight that, historically, there have been various ways of receiving Communion approved by the traditional Church. But from the perspective of the religious conservatives, any alteration of this "religious formalism" would endanger the "efficacy" of the ceremony (Durkheim 1995, p. 33). While conceding that historically there may have been alternative traditional practices, their counter-argument is that what matters most in the present situation is adherence to the mode that has prevailed as holy tradition in the collective conscience of the faithful.

Church leaders at many levels reject a change in the method of distributing Holy Communion because they fear that it will destabilize the essential and nonnegotiable belief in the divine presence during the ritual. Speaking sociologically, the fear is that such a change will destroy the "absolute heterogeneity" between the sacred and the profane in favor of the second realm (Durkheim 1995, p. 36). The rational spirit of this worldly life will impose its logic even upon the "sacrament of the sacraments", restricting in this way the "Lebensraum" of the sacred. The mystical character of the sacred will thus be accepted *only* as a general religious belief under the presupposition that its mode of practice does not contradict the dominant scientific logic and assertions of modernity. Allow for such changes, and the hierarchy of values is thus reversed with allegedly fatal consequences: such a change would function as a "kerkoporta" (backdoor) of worldliness that will inevitably cause the fall of "genuine" Orthodoxy.4 The fear is that Orthodoxy will lose its distinctive identity transformed into an Orthodox version of Protestantism.

#### **5. Conclusions**

The Greek Orthodox Church is not monolithic or uniform. It is comprised of various agents (e.g., bishops, priests, monks, lay theologians) who hold different positions in the church community and who engage in different and, at times, contradictory ways in the process of (re)interpreting common dogmatic beliefs and ritual practices in an attempt either to preserve or adjust them in the narrow contemporary context in which they find themselves, or to a broader rapprochement with secular modernity. In this process, these believers must contend with the presence and pressures of competing secular intellectuals, all bearers of different, often antithetical, political ideologies and practical proposals. The result is a plurality of perspectives, which dialogue and compete with one another and frequently assume conflicting postures, particularly during times of crisis such as the one that we face now with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The challenges and fatal consequences of the pandemic ignited a lively and contentious public and church dialogue surrounding the method of distributing Holy Communion from a common spoon. Although the official ecclesiastical authorities supported various preventive measures against COVID-19, they hesitated or categorically refused to alter this method. As Patriarch Bartholomew noted: "We have obeyed the exhortations of the health and political authorities, and as is natural, we obey, to the point, however, where the essence and the center of our faith is not touched" (Bartholomew 2020).

Such public statements, which highlighted the church's close collaboration with secular authorities but also sought to set a red line to safeguard its own interests, were not enough to prevent the outbreak of a fierce ideological battle between the proponents of

scientific reason and the traditional guardians of Greek Orthodoxy. The first camp sheltered behind claims of objectivity in the medical sciences embodied in the expertise of epidemiologists. The traditional voices in the Church held fast to centuries-old dogmas and rituals of the sacred tradition, and to the charisma of saints. Theologians seeking to stake out viable positions between these camps tried to find a compromise solution in the distinction between the external form and inner essence of the ritual. All sides employed their own de-legitimization strategies. The conservatives were cast as advocates of obscurantism, who transform Christianity into pure magic, putting people at risk of getting infected. Conversely, the reformers were portrayed as heretics who distorted the charismatic essence of Greek Orthodoxy in their attempt to adjust it to secular modernity, jeopardizing people's eternal salvation in this way. Religious reformers and secular-minded actors openly discussed the possibility of changes, but without managing to develop a working alliance that could put pressure on the church authorities to adopt a new method of distributing Holy Communion, their aspirations went largely unrealized. Even when some temporary changes were implemented, these were accompanied by a vocabulary framing that reinforced more than challenged the prevailing practice of giving Communion from the same spoon.

Since the Greek Orthodox hierarchy is invested with the obligation to preserve the essentials of the sacred tradition, changes in theology and practice are easily and frequently condemned as blasphemous and as dangerous heterodoxies. For this camp, such changes can only be accepted within a framework of tradition and as long as they do not compromise the core elements of ecclesiastical life. Otherwise, the identity of Orthodoxy is perceived as being threatened by the spirit of the world, which desecrates the sacred. To avoid this danger, more progressive church officials seek a balance between, on the one hand, the pragmatism that stems from their administrative position in the church and from their close relationship with the secular spheres of life (e.g., politics), and, on the other hand, the need to maintain an identity boundary for their community within the context of secular society. By presenting themselves as guardians of tradition, they attempt to allay fears and tame the ultra-conservatives, but as a rule with no success, because the latter claim for themselves this title and role.

The controversy over the method of distributing Holy Communion just outlined is really just the tip of the iceberg of a deeper conflict that concerns the position and role of the Orthodox Church in the modern secular socio-political order. The secularists support the tendency to embrace the privatization of religion, attributing to the institutional Church only the mere role of a spiritual organization that addresses the metaphysical anxieties of its members. In their opinion, the Church should have a limited presence and restricted voice in matters related to the public sphere. By no means is the Church justified in defying the state, even when the latter imposes restrictions on religious practices and even when such impositions are justified in terms of public safety, risk reduction, and communal solidarity. By contrast, the religious ultra-conservatives aspire to the "Orthodoxization" of all spheres of human life, for they perceive the Church as the "ark of the nation" that encompasses and shapes all the other particular identities and organizations, including the state. In their opinion, the Church should always submit to its sacred tradition, rejecting any changes to its beliefs and practices in response to the ephemeral needs of the secular culture and its political agents. Situated delicately between these two extremes are those who reject both the nationalization and the privatization of the Orthodox faith. These actors support the Church's active role in civil society in the direction of recognition and respect of the alterity of the "other", rejecting any claims of religious or cultural hegemony. In their eyes, the much needed reconciliation of tradition and modernity passes through the rejection of all forms of dogmatism and through the cultivation of a *habitus* of honest dialogue in the interest of the well-being of all members of the society. The outcome of this ideological struggle remains open and offers new possibilities for reaction and counter-reaction to the transformations of its ecclesiastical, cultural, economic, and political conditions.

**Funding:** This paper is an output of the research project 'The Challenge of Worldliness to Contemporary Christianity: Orthodox Christian Perspectives in Dialogue with Western Christianity' at the University of Erfurt, Germany. Available online: https://www.uni-erfurt.de/philosophische-fakultaet/s eminare-professuren/religionswissenschaft/professuren/kulturgeschichte-des-orthodoxen-christen tums/research-project-the-challenge-of-worldliness-to-contemporary-christianity-orthodox-christi an-perspectives-in-dialogue-with-western-christianity (accessed on 4 February 2023).

**Acknowledgments:** I would like to thank Andrew Flescher and Joel Zimbelman for their careful editing work and the anonymous reviewers for their feedback. I also wish to thank Vasilios N. Makrides for useful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **Notes**


#### **References**

*Agios Agathaggelos Esfigmenitis*. 2003. *Agios Agathaggelos Esfigmenitis, Martyria Agonizomenis Orthodoxias Agioriton Monachon*, Issue 196, 4.

ν*ώ*πιoν της πανδημ*ί*ας τoυ κoρωνo*ϊ*o*ύ. Volos: Volos Academy.

Dumont, Louis. 1980. Postface: Toward a Theory of Hierarchy. In *Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications*. Chicago: University of Chicago, pp. 239–45.

Durkheim, Émile. 1995. *The Elementary Forms of Religious Life*. New York: The Free Press.


Zizioulas, John. 1997. *Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church*. Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. Zorbas, Konstantinos, ed. 2021. *Koινωνικ*ή *κρ*ί*ση και πανδημ*ί*α. Mελετ*ώ*ντας τα Kε*ί*μενα της Aγ*ί*ας και Mεγ*ά*λης Συνóδoυ: Πρoβληματισμ*οί *για την κoινωνικ*ή *κρ*ί*ση και την πανδημ*ί*α* τ*oυ COVID-19*. Athens: Akritas.

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
