Globalisation, initially understood as an attempt to overcome the barriers between national economies, now refers to the global exchange of capital, goods and services between countries, as well as to communication between people 1. Communication, based on technological development and the spread of electronic media, has led to the development of relationships, the exchange of ideas and perspectives, the overcoming of stereotypes and prejudices, and, in general, a ‘global’ way of thinking and perceiving human life and society, necessitating political and cultural unification across the world.
An important means of achieving this unification of ways of thinking and living is the interdependence between states, which characterises the 21st century and is a by-product of globalisation and technological progress 2. However, in order to achieve this interdependence 3, a complex system of connectivity will have to be created, one based on the destabilisation of local economies and societies. Furthermore, the cultural distinctiveness of each people will have to be replaced by the creation of a new, shared way of life, which entails the need to relate to one another and, at the same time, undermines the very existence of this society as a free and creative synthesis of diverse and free individuals 4. If the distinctiveness and self-sufficiency of each nation or state are not abolished, then it will not be possible, under any circumstances, to create a situation of dependence on the political and economic circumstances of another state. This shift from the self-sufficiency of states to interdependence is necessary, because globalisation does not create a new society to replace the old one, but rather aims to provide new and better social conditions for living. Globalisation aims to create a supranational entity, a society of communities, in which the complex and time-consuming procedures involved in economic transactions between nations are eliminated. In this way, the aim is to abolish differences, create a single shared perception and bring about a comparative unification of different cultural traditions, in contrast to the evolution each has undergone throughout the long history of the world’s peoples, so as to avoid the painful ‘coordination’ between trading partners. In reality, globalisation merely promotes homogeneity and creates a common thread in the way contemporary people think and express themselves, so as to ensure a single foundation and identity for Western European civilisation, upon which exchanges of all kinds 5 can take place.
However, this interdependent world, which exists on the basis of systemic connectivity, rather than being protected from various dangers, is in fact even more exposed to them, as these dangers reinforce one another, with disastrous consequences for peoples. A disruption to the functioning of one part of this system inevitably leads to the destabilisation of the entire system, resulting in changes to people’s way of life at the economic, social, cultural, political and religious levels, as well as to relations between states, since any change affects the economic and geopolitical interests of every state. Thus, it becomes clear that in modern globalised society, where there can be neither isolation nor restriction, nor free individual thought 6, but where everything merges into a general idea—be it that of the state, civilisation or religion— and into a global way of thinking, which leads to the homogenisation of peoples and civilisations, people’s lives become precarious, as even the slightest change affects the integrity of global society.
Along with the change in people’s ways of thinking and living, the criteria by which contemporary people perceive the world are also changing. Time becomes a fundamental element of people’s daily lives and a point of reference for their activities. Thus, from a measure of movement, time is transformed into a dimension of value, giving the impression of a constant acceleration in the pace of life, whilst simultaneously shortening its very duration. The shortening of life in relation to the increasing pace of life replaces the quality of human existence with the quantity of successes achieved through human activity; these successes, whilst ensuring a comfortable life for people, destroy the quality of that life itself. One consequence of the increasing pace of life is the speed at which one must think and make decisions, whilst being inundated with a vast amount of information that is difficult to analyse and assess correctly within a very short time. This is because the abundance of information, which originates from many and varied aspects of our systemic way of life, leads to a complexity that does not aid in drawing conclusions designed to resolve, simultaneously and directly, problems with many and varied causes 7. In this way, the result of transforming time from a measure of motion into a dimension of value is the creation and development of artificial intelligence, which serves to meet the need for a rapid and valid response to the many problems arising from the sheer volume of information and the complexity of the intractable problems created by globalisation. An extreme form of contribution and development of artificial intelligence, as expressed by robotic technology in the intelligent processing of data by human thought and by the precision of technological applications in the workplace, is also the replacement of humans, in theory (reason) and practice (labour); a replacement which, even if it appears, in this particular case, to be a hypothetical scenario, cannot, nevertheless, be ruled out in the future.
The result of the ideological, cultural and religious egalitarianism of globalisation naturally provokes a reaction from the free human being, created in the image of God, who nevertheless opposes a systemic way of life within that very same system. He barricades himself behind extreme ideologies, by creating populist and nationalist concepts, in an attempt to defend his individual freedom and his national and religious identity. Nevertheless, he fails to break free from the impasses of human society—which globalisation seeks to overcome—because he confines himself to national, political or religious isolationism, which fuels the fragmentation of society. Thus, humankind returns to the very starting point from which the need for globalisation arose, handing over to it the baton for resolving these problems. The only blow that humankind manages to deal to globalisation is to slow it down 8, although, in reality, they are working towards global governance, which seeks to address the move away from isolationism through cooperation and the adaptation of each state’s governance to that of other states.
Therefore, establishing a process of cooperation, so that all people are interdependent and work towards achieving collective well-being, seems, in today’s world, to be a one-way street. Global cooperation can only be achieved through transnational activities, which, however, eliminate national governments and, consequently, national politics, the cultural distinctiveness and religious identity of each people. However, the necessary collaboration, which stems from the pursuit of a social life free from toil and deprivation (a prosperous life), does not allow for free creative cooperation. Without being grounded in the natural evolution of societies based on natural human needs, [this collaboration] sets out to achieve a carefree life through the compulsory abolition of individual freedoms and the associated differences between people 9. Thus, the need for global governance to resolve problems—which are now global due to interdependence, the acceleration of life and the complexity of the interconnection of the conditions for human survival, demands the abolition of freedom, as well as of individual perception and thought, which make each person a distinct and unique personality 10. In this way, globalisation—in the guise of world government—and the suppression of individual freedoms through the creation of global institutions are returning to the forefront. International organisations will now decide on the resolution of problems and the happiness of all people; they will ensure the implementation of decisions on a global scale and will unite people through trust in a transnational and universal system of world governance, without taking into account the particular characteristics of individual nations and, of course, the specific priorities and needs of each individual 11.
Within the new order of things and the new way of life described above—which are being implemented globally and have been briefly outlined previously—Orthodox theology comes to bear witness to its own word of faith and ecclesiastical practice. It seeks to resolve the problems of the contemporary world, not through the same world or another—one that is impersonal and homogenised, which internationalises deadlocks—so as to impose, solutions by enslaving humanity and abolishing rational judgement, being the sole ‘12’ that distinguishes the human being from irrational created reality. Theology does not seek to replace humankind and human activity with some robotic mechanism, but rather aims to bring to light a new world, which is both the result of humankind’s restructured way of thinking and of life to which a new meaning has been given. Without being confined to a systemic perception of things, theology cultivates the freedom of the individual within an organically united society. The distinction between the world of theology and the world of political systems is based on three elements: the universality of the Church, the knowledge of truth, and human freedom.
According to the Holy Fathers of the Church, the world is not distinct from the Church. Saint Gregory of Nyssa equates the creation of the world with the building of the Church 13. Saint Maximus the Confessor shares this understanding when he states that the whole world, which came from God through creation, is wisely reflected in the visible, man-made Church, as a kind of other Church, to a certain extent, heavenly and not made by human hands 14. Saint John of Damascus, following patristic teaching, will maintain that the world is ‘the place of God (τόπος Θεοῦ)’, because God extends throughout the whole world and imparts His energy to all things, according to each one’s capacity and receptivity, revealing Himself without becoming mingled with it. Consequently, for theology, the world is not something distinct from the Church, in which God exists and reveals Himself through His energy (15), so that the world evolves in parallel with and independently of the Church; rather, it is the Church itself (16), in which God exists and works (17).
However, one might well object to this interpretation and argue that the identification of the world with the Church represents a philosophical interpretation of reality, which can be set alongside and compared with other philosophical views of the world, without it being accepted as reality. Theology responds to this possible objection by arguing that the world, as the Church, transcends the fragmented reality perceived within the finitude and variability of human experience, and ensures diachronic unity, which no philosophical current – not even globalisation itself or global governance – can achieve without altering and transforming human thought and life. For the ‘ecclesial’ person—that is, one who possesses an ecclesial consciousness and believes in the Triune God—transcends ethnic, cultural, political and socio-economic differences and is united with others in the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, if the Church is the Body of Christ and all people are united in Christ, then the world is recapitulated in the Church 18 through Christ 19. In this way, the Church is not an abstract concept, nor a collection of soulless or sentient beings, rational or irrational, but is perceived as a historical person, namely that of Christ, Who expresses the universality of the Church and the unity of the world. Saint Cyril of Alexandria records in this regard: “‘for it is neither a messenger nor an angel, as it is written, but the Lord Himself’, the Word of God the Father, having become man for our sake, through Himself established the Church, and ‘He has made the two peoples into one new man’, so that He might bring peace and reconcile the two in one Spirit to the ‘Father’20”.
In this new, ecclesial world, in which globalisation is not understood as the overcoming of obstacles to cooperation and connectivity between individual systems, unity is founded on human nature transformed ontologically, and not on the abolition of individual freedom and personal self-awareness. Unity does not rest on a change in thinking or a change in lifestyle, but on the fundamental recreation of the world into a ‘new man’. Saint John Chrysostom, analysing the words of Saint Paul the Apostle, ‘that in Himself He might build the two into one new man’21 emphatically observes that Saint Paul does not advocate the transformation of the Greek 22 into a Jew. A change of this kind, which, in this case, means changing the pagan way of thinking and living into the corresponding Jewish one, would not have offered anything new, as is the case with globalisation and international political solutions, but would have transformed one into the other as part of a policy of levelling out individuals, political and religious freedoms, and cultural particularities. The conditions of life would have remained the same, even if they had been presented in a different form. That is why the Saviour Jesus Christ neither abolishes the Mosaic Law, which defines the Jew from an ethnic and religious perspective, nor does He deny Hellenic civilisation. The purpose of transfiguration in Christ is not to eliminate differentiation, but to recreate something new, which requires creation rather than a ‘remodelling’ of the already existing conditions and systems of human society. By transcending the Law as a Greek and being circumcised as a Jew, the incarnate Son of God thus eliminates the alienating forces of contradictions, re-establishing man in a nature that is absolutely different from and infinitely superior to the created and transitory reality of the world. He accomplishes within Himself the unity of the Divine with the human, of the Uncreated with the created, destroying ‘enmity’ and restoring peace with God 23.
This creative reshaping of the world, of course, cannot be achieved by opting for supranational systems or global governance. The imposition of a common way of thinking and living can never exclude man’s natural freedom to determine his own destiny within society, since he continues to be and remains a rational being (ἔλλογο ὄν). The existence or creation of new minorities, as distinct social entities, will always serve as a means of controlling and destabilising any supra-ethnic system of governance over peoples. The creative reformation and unity of this highly fragmented world can be achieved only by the Saviour Jesus Christ, for He introduces a different conception, which is expressed through the sacramental life of the Church, and the point of reference for human self-determination lies outside worldly and ever-changing reality.
The transformation of man in Christ, proclaimed by Christ Himself, is not due to an alteration of human nature and its value, nor to the restriction of free will to a specific framework of values and freedoms imposed by international political and economic interests, as is the case with globalisation, but is based on the creation of a new human being, that is, the ‘ecclesial’ human being, who exists in parallel with the worldly one, giving meaning to the former and continually renewing it. Thus, the shift of the defining element of the human person from human communion (the world) to communion with God (the Church) ensures the individual’s particularity and, at the same time, guarantees their universality through self-understanding in Christ alone. In this new situation of life and communion, the constant changes and transformations in the economy or in the social and material criteria for evaluating life, no longer serving as the unifying bond of a society, cannot influence the new man in Christ and, consequently, shatter the natural unity of the world as a creation before God, the Uncreated Creator. Therefore, the only point of reference outside the world, which transcends the world and leads it to a stable point of unity in diversity, can only be the Uncreated God and faith in the One Triune God. This is because faith builds up the new man in the image of God on the basis of true righteousness and holiness, as Saint Athanasius the Great characteristically states. Of course, this is not because a human being different from the one whom God created from the beginning in His own image and likeness is created, but because the mind, being renewed in Christ, is transformed in its perception and thought 24, thereby transforming the world itself.
This change is brought about through discipleship under the one and only Teacher and Master, Jesus Christ. This process of discipleship does not, of course, represent a means of imparting the values of a civilisation or the religious heritage of a people, which, under different circumstances, continues the life and work of previous generations, imposing an apparently different way of life, whilst in fact confining the new to a new expression of the ancient generation. Christ, as Teacher, comes to fulfil the tradition and the Law 25, to transcend diversity, to destroy opposition and to unite contradictions. Without negating particularity, He transcends every individual trait, so as to leave a single and unique imprint of this unifying principle, which is none other than Christ Himself 26. And because both the Teacher and the teaching are One and the Same Person of Christ, none of the disciples of the One and Only Teacher can ever call themselves a teacher (διδάσκαλος) or professor (καθηγητής) 27. For this reason, only those who abide in the revelatory word of the Saviour Christ are called His disciples 28 and only they know the truth, which sets them free from any conventional and harmful relationship 29.
The truth, of course, does not refer to the acquisition of prior knowledge, nor to the analysis, synthesis and processing of information in isolation. As for the former, it is the content of history and represents the actualisation of the past, whilst, in the latter case, it is the content of science and is transformed according to the data of each era. Truth presents itself as a representation of the created and ever-changing world. Therefore, although it exists within temporal variability, it transcends the particularity of any thing that can be scientifically investigated and, without being confined to partial knowledge, reveals itself as universal and objective in relation to every thing in the created order, within the framework of passing time. In this way, through creation, the whole truth is known, which, in this instance, is the Logos of the first ‘let there be (γενηθήτω)’30 For this reason, Saint Athanasius the Great identifies the reason for the incarnation and presence of the Son and the Logos of God in the world as the revelation of God and man’s knowledge of the Triune God 31.
The result of this knowledge is human freedom, which clearly does not refer to social freedom. Indeed, Christianity is not a social system, and as such does not concern itself with social freedom or the fight against social, economic or political slavery. The freedom promised by Jesus Christ is freedom from sin. It is freedom from any worldly dependence of man, from any material, economic or political pursuit, as well as from any conventional relationship which might, in fact, lead to a violent reaction against the established order. It is freedom from man himself; therefore, it is freedom from any revolutionary concept, for faith in the truth is not constrained by the conditions and circumstances of each age or by man’s conception of himself, such that the overthrow of the old order and the renewal of social life are sought. However, this freedom is not confined to a systematic way of life that would lead to the overthrow of a system, within the limits, nevertheless, of the freedoms permitted by that system itself. Belief in truth, as universal—which means an awareness of reality itself—frees man from any worldly desire, for, being the whole of reality, it rejects the existence of any desire not encompassed within it. Belief in the truth means surrendering oneself to the possibility of being convinced by the Truth. The prophets presupposed this belief before they became aware of and discovered the truth; the Holy Apostles believed in this truth, and this truth, as complete knowledge, is addressed only to the faithful and, always, to the disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ 32.
Consequently, in today’s world of globalised society or global governance, which promises peace and prosperity for the present age, Orthodox theology 33 stands in opposition to the attempt to distort and homogenise the free and creative human person, upholding instead its uniqueness and absolute freedom. It proclaims human happiness, not on the basis of a carefree life, which leads to inequalities and conflicts, nor, again, on the levelling ideology of globalisation, through the denial of human property and self-determination, but in a world transfigured in Christ the Saviour, a world in which moral, racial, ethnic and social distinctions are abolished. Through the knowledge and experience of the one truth of the One God the Creator, it ensures unity whilst simultaneously nurturing the religious, historical and cultural foundations of every people, so that every person may preserve their ethnic and existential identity. From this perspective, theology is probably the only discipline that can, today, offer a solution for the rebirth of the world in the face of the impasse posed by the homogenisation of peoples and the enslavement of humankind.
- 1
K. Vergopoulos, Globalisation: The Great Chimera, Athens, 1999, p. 298; Kl. Schwab, Th. Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset, trans. Ar. Alavanou, Athens, 2021, p. 112 (Greek translation).
- 2
Kl. Schwab, Th. Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset, p. 22.
- 3
I have added some additional information in square brackets to make the text easier to read (translator’s note).
- 4
See K. Vergopoulos, Globalisation, p. 336 ff.; G. Mantzaridis, Globalisation and Globality. Chimera and Truth, Thessaloniki, 2001, p. 29.
- 5
K. Papapetrou, Approaches. Issues of apologetic theology and philosophical criticism of our times, Athens, 1979, p. 233 ff. See also A. Karmi, Globalisation–Globality. Proposals for Orthodox Christian anthropology and sociology, excerpted from the Scientific Yearbook of the Theological School of Athens (EETHSA) 36 (2001), p. 886 ff. Professor C. Delikonstantis expresses a different view, rejecting the influence of globalisation on ‘local cultures’ and the ‘particularity of civilisations’ as an ‘alteration or disappearance of particular civilisations’ (K. Delikostantis, Education as the Culture of the Person, Athens, 2009, p. 145 ff.). He bases this view on the purported aim of globalisation, which is not the alteration of civilisations—thereby inevitably leading to homogenisation—but rather unity at the economic and cultural levels, so as to create the appropriate conditions for improving the lives of contemporary people worldwide. However, as is already clear from the above, this unity cannot be achieved through the cultural specificity of local societies, even though the aim of globalisation is to create a prosperous society based on economic development. The unity offered by globalisation, as [Metropolitan] John of Pergamon observes, ‘in a mysterious way, whilst promoting global unity, it does so by encouraging and fostering discrimination between those who prosper and those who suffer, often leading either to conflicts of interest or to marginalisation, self-abandonment and the inevitable isolation of those who fail to be productive enough to be entitled to prosperity” [Ioannis Zizioulas (Metropolitan of Pergamon), ‘Cultural Identities and Globalisation’, in Cultural Identities and Globalisation. Conference Papers, ‘Entelechia’ Society for Education and Culture – Geitonas and Kostas Geitonas Schools, Athens, 2003, p. 28]. In this sense, globalisation is clearly not ambivalent in nature, although there are opposing views (see K. Delikostantis, Education as the Culture of the Person, p. 142 ff.), but rather leads to the homogenisation of society.
- 6
See Kl. Schwab, Th. Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset, p. 22 et seq.
- 7
Kl. Schwab, Th. Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset, p. 26 et seq.
- 8
Kl. Schwab, Th. Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset, p. 113.
- 9
Kl. Schwab, Th. Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset, p. 121 et seq.
- 10
Kl. Schwab, Th. Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset, p. 122.
- 11
Kl. Schwab, Th. Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset, p. 125 et seq.
- 12
That is to say, rational judgement (translator’s note).
- 13
Saint Gregory of Nyssa, In Canticum canticorum XIII, in Gregorii Nysseni opera VI, ed. H. Langerbeck, Leiden: Brill, 1960, p. 384 (PG 44, 1049 BC): ‘the creation of the world is the building of the Church (κόσμου κτίσις ἐστὶν ἡ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κατασκευή)’.
- 14
Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogia II, PG 91, 669 A: ‘The whole world of things, which came into being from God through creation... is like a kind of other Church, not made by human hands, revealed in wisdom through this one which is made by human hands (ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ κατὰ γένεσιν παρηγμένος σύμπας τῶν ὄντων κόσμος... ‘another Church, existing yet unmade by human hands, is wisely revealed through this one which is made by human hands’).”
- 15
Or ‘work’ (translator’s note).
- 16
That is why the world—that is to say, the Church—is, according to Saint John of Damascus, ‘the dwelling place of God’ (translator’s note).
- 17
Saint John of Damascus, Expositio Fidei Orthodoxae XIII, in Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos II (Patristische Texte und Studien 12), ed. Kotter, B., Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973, p. 38 (PG 94, 852 AB): ‘That which participates more fully in God’s energy and grace is therefore called the place of God. That is why heaven is His throne (for in it are the Angels, who do His will and glorify Him evermore; since it is His resting place), and the earth is a footstool for His feet (for on earth He dwelt in the flesh amongst men). His Holy Body has, in another sense, been called the foot of God. The Church is also called the place of God; for we have dedicated this place to His glory, just as a consecrated place, in which we also offer our prayers to Him. Likewise, the places where His energy has been made known to us, whether through the body or without the body, are called places of God [It is therefore said that the place which most partakes of His energy and grace is God’s place. For this reason, heaven is His throne (for in it are the angels who carry out his will and ever glorify him; for this is his rest) and the earth is the footstool of his feet (for in it he lived amongst men in the flesh). But the holy flesh of God is called by various names. The Church is also called the dwelling place of God; for we have set this apart for His glorification, like a temple, in which we also hold our gatherings dedicated to Him. Likewise, the places, in which His work is manifest to us, whether it took place in the flesh or without a body, are called ‘places of God’]”.
- 18
The world, as the Church, is the very Son and Word of God made flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom the whole of creation is recapitulated (translator’s note).
- 19
For a summary, see Ἀνδρ. Theodorou, On the Summary of Irenaeus’s Teaching, excerpted from EETHSA 18, Athens, 1972.
- 20
Saint Cyril of Alexandria, In Oseam prophetam commentarius, in Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in xii prophetas I, ed. Pusey, P. E., Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1965, p. 74 (PG 71, 93 A). See also Isaiah 63:9.
- 21
Ephesians 2:15 (translator’s note).
- 22
That is to say, the pagans of that time (translator’s note).
- 23
St John Chrysostom, On the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians V, in PG 62, 40 A–D.
- 24
Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (or the Great), Ad Serapionem, PG 26, 553 C: ‘for He who first created him, this very one, after he had fallen, rebuilt him, becoming Himself among created beings when the Logos became man, so that, as [Saint] Paul the Apostle, ‘that He might create the two into one new man’, that is, the one who was created in the image of God ‘in righteousness and holiness of the truth’. For [the Holy Apostle Paul] did not say this in the sense that another man was created by the man who was made from the beginning in the image of God, but he was teaching that this should take place in the mind that was created and renewed in Christ (for what He had previously fashioned, having fallen, He restored, having become Himself part of creation, when the Word became flesh, so that, as the Apostle said, He might create the two into one new man, who is created according to God in righteousness and the holiness of the truth. For he did not speak of a man created by another, distinct from the man who was created from the beginning in the image of God; but he advised them to take up the mind that had been formed and renewed in Christ). Compare with Ephesians 2:15 and 4:24.
- 25
Matthew 5:17.
- 26
Saint Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogy, in PG 91, 664 D–665 B.
- 27
Matthew 23:8–10: ‘But you are not to be called “Rabbi”, for you have one Teacher: Christ; and you are all brothers. Nor are you to be called ‘teachers’, for you have but one Teacher: Christ (ὑμεῖς δὲ μὴ κληθῆτε, Ῥαββί, εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ διδάσκαλος, πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε. ...nor are you to be called ‘teachers’, for you have but one Teacher, Christ)”.
- 28
St Basil the Great, On Baptism I, 2, PG 31, 1516B: ‘A disciple, therefore, is... anyone who draws near to the Lord in order to follow Him, that is, to heed His words (Μαθητὴς μὲν οὖν ἐστιν, ... πᾶς ὁ τῷ Κυρίῳ προσερχόμενος, ὥστε ἀκολουθεῖν αὐτῷ, τουτέστιν, ἀκούειν τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ)”.
- 29
John 8:31–32.
- 30
See Genesis 1:3 (translator’s note).
- 31
Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, ‘De Incarnatione’, 13, in Sur l’incarnation du verbe (Sources chrétiennes 199), ed. C. Kannengiesser, Paris: Cerf, 1973, p. 310 ff. (PG 25, 117 C–120 B).
- 32
Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentaries on the Psalms, in PG 23, 105 CD.
- 33
For that is what this is all about (translator’s note).