First of all, the editors of Theandros would like to thank Alex Kinnet for his personal reflections on deeply difficult issues about faith in the modern and postmodern world. Theandros is now beginning its fifth year online with this issue (Vol 5.1) and Alex’s article expresses a certain anxiety about contemporary faith that we think is most relevant to one of the aims of this journal. We also would like to thank all of the contributors to this issue and issues of the first four years for making the journal a great success, and taking the opportunity our little place on the web provides to hash out difficult issues that arise when theology and philosophy cross paths or work in union.

Several problems were mentioned in Kinnet’s article, which I’ll interpretatively paraphrase, while hoping to be forgiven for distortion of the author’s intention:

1) The scientific revolution and education in scientific thinking leaves the appearance that Christian cosmology (and that of other religions) is myth and legend.
2) The technology revolution has opened up a stream of information about science and religion that is difficult to digest and reconcile.
3) The average Christian is no longer the 'uneducated dolt' who ignores scientific advancement and achievement.
4) The ‘old world language’ of Christianity is not providing meaning today and is challenged by scientific developments and other theories about the world and nature.
5) Practice of Christian faith does not necessarily sync up with the theology behind it.
6) Orthodox and Catholic theologians have not been doing enough to address these issues on the terms in which they are presented as a fundamental concern in contemporary multiculture.

Alex Kinnet writes, “Science has demystified quite impressive inner world phenomena and is demystifying more and more riddles, problems and is improving his capacity to prevent and or cure problems. Result: the existential reality seems to work without the power of Heaven.”

There can be no dispute that the role of science and scientific method has been and will continue to be of paramount importance. While science has always been of a critical topic for philosophy since the time of Aristotle (pre-Socratic speculation about nature might be included as well), it has required the development of entire new branch, philosophy of science, to address the abundance of issues (epistemological, social, ethical). How the results of studies about nature and technology (particularly genetics where issues of free-will are debated) are interpreted in areas that don't pertain to science, i.e., "the impressive inner world phenomena", is not science itself but a perspective. Popular science writers who propose demystifying interpretations are not always authorities on the issue, because they have not taken the philosophical leap into theorizing about the mucky realm of the inner life. Another area of philosophy, phenomenology, (whose methods are widely used in anthropology and psychology) has attempted and developed methods for researching matters pertaining to human beings and being human that are not necessarily committed to an eliminative-materialist position, although certain theories within phenomenology recognize being situated in bodies as critical to our perceptions of ourselves, others and the world (based on the work of Merleau-Ponty). Fallible explanations from human reason are not science itself - the debates within epistemology about what constitutes an 'explanation', 'interpretation', 'cause', or 'evidence' will continue.

Kinnet further states: “It is therefore very disappointing, to say the least, that in the Catholic and Orthodox world an overall refusal of modernity and scientifically-obtained results is prevailing and no serious study or discussion is started.”

One of the goals of Theandros, which has to date been successfully met on account of the excellent contributions, is to publish on such dialogues, without the authors and readers needing to fear that such dialogues may be shut down as a perceived threat to the faith. People of the Orthodox faith need to respond with courage when confronted by the paradoxes of modernity and post-modernity. I disagree that there is an ‘overall refusal’ by Catholic and Orthodox theologians to face these issues, although, there may be varying degrees of lack of understanding of their importance or a philosophical approach to them from within the faith. These issues do indeed have top-billing in religious studies and theology departments at universities. Various organizations have been presenting outstanding scholarship in theology with an openness to contemporary issues: to name only a few, the American Academy of Religion (AAR), the Pappas Patristic Institute of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, and other organizations such as the Templeton Foundation whose purpose is to promote dialogue between science and religion.

The problem, rather than being whether theologians are up to the task of facing the issues, may really be about education. Issues within theology are often so complex they require years of post-graduate study. A dialogue between science and religion requires even more study for meaningful participation, often of fields outside one's ken.

The editors feel that the independence of this journal from any official affiliation is critical for preserving philosophical discourse that both supports and challenges various tenants of the faith. Without such discourse, Orthodoxy might as well be an ‘empty reliquary’ rather than a meaningful faith based on tradition. Exploration of the history of Christianity, especially in the patristic and Byzantine periods, has been another focus of Theandros. Rigorous scholarship into this history means allowing critical methodology to guide our way into the factual details, as well as recognizing what issues of interpretation have or might arise when dealing with ‘historical fact’. When the results of historical research challenge a tenant of faith, then then the proper (intelligent) responses from the faith should be assessed: whether or not a book of the Old Testament was written in the 9th or the 7th century, and how a researcher interprets the political motivation of such books, may not be relevant or a sufficient challenge to the most basic tenants of faith.

Orthodoxy has always had an advantage in this regard over more recently developed interpretations of Christianity such as literal fundamentalism, because it has not ignored history and has a long tradition of facing issues of historical fact, such as whether or not a certain book was really written by an apostle and should be included in the canon. It also has the advantage of recognizing the fallibility of human beings in their record of divine events, while building upon a belief in divine inspiration when appropriate. (I can only say this as a sideline commentator since I'm not a theologian, but) I think this puts Orthodox theologians in a unique position to participate in challenging dialogues about faith and society without needing to distort history or science. It's very unfortunate that the perception of Christianity from outside of it is often caricaturized as deliberate ignorance of facts about this world rather than the world to come. This perception is unfortunately supported by a shockingly popular promotion of ignorance of history and science among certain Christian sects. Perhaps my shock is not warranted since ignorance has always been around but is only more apparent due to communication portals. What's most disturbing however is when the ignorant have and abuse political power while giving their views the name of Christianity (I'll leave it up to the readers' imagination as to those who might fall under this category).

So, let's look at a sample of more concrete issues that may arise from Orthodoxy's closer involvement with the world:

How do or should Christians respond to what is established as scientific fact? Let’s take the crisis of environmental destruction by the human population. A pressing issue is whether or not particular Christian beliefs or interpretations of scripture are contributing to the destruction of the environment, and how Christians should prioritize preservation of the planet.

How might Christians dialogue with believers of other faiths, agnostics, and atheists, recognizing that other positions on religion are often arrived at through deeply personal interpretations of experiences, while not degenerating into disrespect for the person?

What is the status of women in an ecclesiastical context? Can we clearly distinguish between tradition as a ground for Orthodox and ethnic artifacts of women's status that pose as tradition?

How can a dialogue between theology and science be maintained without transforming basic theological positions beyond recognition, such as lapsing into pantheism as a hasty attempt to integrate the visible and the invisible? The Christian position is that the world depends upon God, while an atheist position is that the universe requires no such dependency.

An anthropological position is that human beings, at the very least, have depended on the concept of God or gods. There is no reason why such a realization has to be posited (in the manner of Feuerbach, perhaps) as an anthropological ‘explanation’ rather than integrated into a theology that recognizes a co-operation and dependency between humanity and God. This is what I see as the challenge for Orthodoxy and for all theistic religions.