Page 380 - Orthodoxy Zizioulas

O r t h o d o x y
as a sine qua non condition for the one. Such a monotheism
cannot be accused of failing to respond to existential questions
about the self, the other, or the world. On the contrary, its
implications for human existence, social life, and even our
relationship with nature are profound.
The three monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam—are today at the early stages of a dialogue in which
the Ecumenical Patriarchate plays a leading role. At present,
the primary goal of this dialogue is limited to tolerance—the
avoidance of conflict in the name of religion. Although this
may not fully satisfy us, it remains both useful and perhaps
even necessary. However, as Adonis rightly reminds us, if we
settle for mere tolerance, we risk falling into a new form of
bondage.
We must go further. Religious beliefs must be brought face
to face with the existential problems of humanity, and answers
must be sought. No religious faith justifies its existence solely
by claiming to possess the truth. It must demonstrate that it
exists not to enslave but to liberate humanity—to address its
deepest existential concerns.
In these few lines, I have sought to show that the problem
does not lie in monotheism itself, but in how it is understood,
and more importantly, in how truth is perceived. If we attri-
bute the problem to monotheism, we must explain why poly-
theists—such as Marcus Aurelius and other Roman emper-
ors—resorted to violence, or why regimes that championed
atheism also turned to oppression. The issue is not monothe-
ism, but fundamentalism—the kind that imprisons truth
within the letter that “kills” (2 Cor. 3:6). A monotheism open
to otherness is by no means inconceivable.
It remains to be seen whether, in their present forms, the
monotheistic religions can move beyond mere tolerance to a
380