The first speaker was Vladan Perišić, Professor of Patrology of the University of Belgrade on the theme:“Can Orthodox Theology Be Contextual?” According to him given that there is no ‘pure’, uninterpreted Gospel (as well as any other text), the question is not whether we will have interpretation or not, but whether this interpretation will be good or bad. So some kind of interpretation is always present, independently of our being conscious of this fact. In other words, our understanding always presupposes a kind of pre-understanding. So, every text arises from some con-text (and also enters some other context). Understanding of certain phenomena requires understanding of their context, but conversely the very context is understandable only from the phenomena we investigate (i.e. every interpretation necessarily goes in circles) A question remains: what comes first?

Now, God’s words are not given to us directly, but as human words in human context. This means that in order to understand them, we need interpretation. If, in the process of interpretation, we do not read a (biblical) text as a testimony to what it testifies, but as a testimony to the time and culture from which it testifies, by that kind of approach we show that what interests us is not the content of the testimony but the testifier. However, the intention of the one who testify was not to testify about his time and culture, but to convey some important truths (which is to be analyzed by an approach different from that when we are interested primarily in the socio-cultural context).

The next problem we meet in the hermeneutical process of understanding the text is the relationship between context and truth. In order to grasp some biblical truth, it is desirable to understand the cultural circumstances (i.e. the context) in which it is settled. This is one thing. Entirely other is to claim that this truth is so tied with that culture that it is culturally dependent. The truths of divine revelations cannot be judged by the criteria of culture. Also, culture can sometimes contribute to the understanding of some revealed truths, but more often than not it can prevent it. So we have always to keep in mind that the Christian message is in space and time, but it is not about space and time.

The main question we have to answer is: what is the proper context for theological reflection? To my mind, the proper theological context is philosophy. According to this, contextual theology would be the one which is conscious of its philosophical presuppositions. Every theology has philosophical presuppositions, but we can call contextual that one which is conscious of them (if somebody thinks that this name carries some advantages). This is not to affirm that contextual theology has only philosophical and no other (social, cultural, etc.) presuppositions. Nevertheless, its presuppositions as theology’s are first and foremost philosophical. That could be shown in the cases of triadology, christology, personology, creationism, iconology, and every other theology.

Concerning orthodox theology, we have to notice that the anti-intellectualism of contemporary orthodox theologians is hardly in harmony with the emphasized endeavor of the greatest theologians of the first centuries of the Church to ‘save’ the human intellect, and so not to present Christian faith to the world in which they lived as irrational and in conflict with the human mind. It is equally opposed to the warning made by Florovsky in our own time that “the example of the holy Fathers encourages a speculative confession of faith.”

The second speaker was George Martzelos, Professor at the School of Theology, University of Thessaloniki analyzing “The role of Contextual Theology in the orthodox Tradition”. The speaker stressed that the problematic relationship between what is known as “contextual theology” and the Orthodox tradition became fully apparent at the 7^th General Assembly of the WCC (Canberra-1991) as a result of the provocative suggestion by the Presbyterian South Korean Professor Chung Hyuan Kyung, who tried to present the work of the Holy Spirit in creation and history in the framework of pantheistic and animistic beliefs and images, particularly of the peoples of Northeast Asia. As is well known, her presentation, precisely because of its pantheistic and animistic orientation, generated a storm of reactions and strong criticism not only from the Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonian participants as well as the Roman Catholic observers, but also from the vast majority of Protestants.

However, despite the justified criticism against this presentation, according to Martzelos, it made a valuable contribution, not so much because it disclosed the full extent of the chasm between classical and contextual theology (which was already latent within the framework of the WCC), but primarily because its provocative ideas highlighted the role that Orthodox theology can play in the WCC’ s multilateral theological dialogues, responding in a productive and creative way to the contextual challenges of our time.

 And this is true because the use of contextual representations and images in helping the truths of the Bible be understood by people of different cultural backgrounds is not only legitimate from the Orthodox perspective, but is actually imperative. This is a fundamental missionary and educational method that is deeply rooted in the history and the life of the Church. However the use of these contextual images has to be restricted to the terminology of the doctrine, leaving intact and unchanged its core. Moreover, this was the attitude of both the apostles and the Fathers of the Church. Although they used figurative depictions and forms from the contextual cultural background and the general atmosphere of the Greek world, these images, nevertheless, were limited exclusively to the terminological level and did not alter the message of the divine revelation. On the contrary, they not only faithfully reflected this message, but most of the time they safeguarded it from heretical counterfeits. Indicative examples of this are John the Evangelist’s description of the Son of God with the help of the Stoic or Philonian word "Logos," and the Apostle Paul’s use of the Stoic concepts of the poets Aratus and Pseudo-Epimenides in his speech at the “Areios Pagos” in order to emphasize God’s omnipresence and His relationship to humanity, or even the Nicaean fathers’ use of the term "consubstantial" to indicate the substantial relationship between the Father and the Son, even though that this term was closely linked to the Neo-Platonic concept of “emanation."

In this respect it could be said that Orthodox theology is the contextual theology par excellence because it dared to formulate the gospel in a way that was unique and unprecedented in history, based on the contextual figurative images and terminological presuppositions of the Greek world. Without this venture, the “marriage” between Christianity and Hellenism, or rather the Christianization of Hellenism would not have been possible.

In continuity with these illustrative examples from the Orthodox tradition, modern Orthodoxy is called to enter into a fruitful engagement with the contextual images and ideas of our time, without any kind of fear that the potential development of the gospel’s message to the modern world will ultimately be impeded or at least made extremely difficult.

The international conference is covered by the web television-channel www.intv.gr with simultaneous translation (English-Greek).