Dialectics, as a tool, can be an effective way to steer whole societies in certain directions.

In this section, we will briefly sketch two recurrent modern fears and potential dangers regarding the possibility of being immersed in a process of global dialectical worldview manipulation, of which there are arguably certain signs already present.

The term Ecumenism, as used in the Christian world, is the notion that Christians belonging to different denominations should work together and promote Christian unity.¹Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago. “What are Ecumenical Relations?”. Retrieved 24 September 2020: “Ecumenical relations, also known as ecumenism, are the effort to seek Christian unity by cultivating meaningful relationships and understanding by and between the many different Christian churches and Christian Communities.”An inter-faith vision of Ecumenism, in contrast, would point to the commonalities between major religions and how they all try to achieve, through their own particular vision and means, the same goal. Perennialism or Traditionalism would be its most influential current incarnation.

This concept has proven to be polarising, with ardent advocates and vocal critics. The problem with this notion in an inter-faith setting is that unity, in itself, has no value if it is not unity in truth. This very obvious fact is what bears the risk of being forgotten by the application of a (willingly or unwillingly) misunderstood notion of Ecumenism.

The problem with inter-faith Ecumenism in a Christian context, furthermore, is that by affirming it, we are negating the doctrine of the Church as the body of Christ and as the fruit of the Incarnation. Therefore, indirectly, we are negating that God became man, that the Holy Spirit resides in the Church and that we are His temples, and Jesus Christ´s promise regarding how the Church will prevail against all obstacles (Matthew 16:18).

In short, this doctrine, indirectly and presumably unintentionally, affirms that Jesus Christ was a fallible man. Instead of uniting Christianity, it renounces it.

As Fr. Heers remarked²Heers, Fr. Peter (2018). On the Essential Identity of Ecumenism & Phyletism. Orthodox Ethos. Retrieved November 2023. [Fr. Heers can sometimes be a controversial figure for some people. Please, do your own research]., the fear is that Ecumenism, as a unification movement born within secularized Christianity, is walking in the direction of overcoming “the scandal of division” by denying the “scandal of the particular”, the Incarnation. Or, to use the terminology we have used so far in this website, the concern is that it is walking a path that can easily end in the renunciation of the Christian One/Many paradigm (Jesus Christ as the Concrete Universal, transcending the One/Many dichotomy) in order to go back to pure unity (the One), thus reverting to a dialectical way of thinking, rejecting revelation and worshipping human reason again³Which echoes the words of the serpent in Genesis, promising Self-Deification: “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” ― Genesis 3:4-6 . New King James Version.. This, for any Christian aware of the Scriptures is, at the very least, concerning.⁴“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” ― 1 John 4:3. New King James Version.

That Ecumenism bears the risk of going back to favouring human reason over revelation is also evident from the fact that, if one supposedly believes in a truth that was revealed directly by God and not derived solely through human understanding, doctrinal compromises are not acceptable. Every doctrinal compromise, instead, becomes an implicit declaration of unbelief.

Phyletism is the inclusion of nationalism in Church administration or, in other words, the conflation between Church and nation. It is often described as the opposite of Ecumenism, since the former identifies the Church with the many nationalities that conform it, while the latter states that all different churches should look after unification. The former is considered an actual ecclesiastical heresy, while the latter is an ideology with the potential to also become a serious one.

As Fr. Heers underlined, even though they are considered as antagonic, they are part of the same dialectical tension. In fact, Ecumenism, as the ideology “in charge” of correcting Phyletism, needs its counterpart in order to exist. In other words, the existence of Phyletism is a necessary pre-condition for Ecumenism to become a dominant ideology. It is its antithesis, the Yin to its Yang or, as the harshest critics state, the straw man needed for it to triumph.⁵Heers, Fr. Peter (2018). On the Essential Identity of Ecumenism & Phyletism. Orthodox Ethos. Retrieved November 2023.

One particularly dangerous and, apparently not totally unfounded, fear is that we are treading a path that will eventually lead to a One World Religion. Dangerous, not because of its immediate negative effects, but because of its desirability in an exhausted world sick of religious and geopolitical conflict. Dangerous because it is possible to engineer its acceptance as a solution to a pre-fabricated problem, as we will later see. And, especially, dangerous because in any such scenario the possibility of it being a religion based on truth is minimal.

In order to prove our point, we will just mention a few of many relatively recent developments pointing at that scenario, such as:

• The creation of an interfaith worship center for Jews, Christians and Muslims to be built in Berlin, called, unsurprisingly, the House of One.

• The creation of the Abrahamic Family House in Abu Dhabi. Which includes a synagogue, a church and a mosque, inspired by the Papal Document on Human Fraternity.

• The Palace of Peace and Reconciliation in Astana, capital of Kazakhstan. A pyramidal structure (not dissimilar to the masonic symbolism of the “Eye of Providence” above an unfinished pyramid, also present in the dollar bill) that hosts once every three years The Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions, a meeting where leaders of all major religions congregate under an ecumenical spirit.

Another prominent example of how an apparently good-natured ecumenist spirit can be problematic is the Second Vatican Council of Roman Catholicism (1962–1965).

The council addressed relations between the Catholic Church and the modern world⁸Gaudium et spes [Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World]. II Vatican council. Rome, Italy: Vatican., with many of the changes made still being controversial to this day among Catholics.⁹Brewer, John D.; Higgins, Gareth I.; Teeney, Francis (2011). Religion, Civil Society, and Peace in Northern Ireland. Oxford University Press: “Vatican II, by eliminating Latin prayers, offended traditional Catholics […].”
Several changes were centered around increasing the ecumenical efforts with other Christian denominations, as well as interfaith dialogue with other religions.¹⁰Paolo VI (1969). “Sanctitas clarior – Lettera Apostolica in forma di Motu Proprio con la quale sono riordinati i processi per le cause di beatificazione e canonizzazione” (vatican.va).

In fact, Vatican II has become infamous for its divisiveness, since many Catholics still feel conflicted about the consequences and the aims of this council, with some declaring it invalid due to many council statements being in conflict with established precepts regarding morals and doctrine.¹¹“Twenty-five explicit errors of Vatican Council II”. In those cases, Vatican II is viewed as an invalid revisionist and modernist attempt on traditional Christian beliefs.

This is the case of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), which recognises the authority of the Pope but rejects Vatican II. Other groups went even further, declaring vacant the Holy See since the death of Pope Pius XII (Sedevacantism), all Popes that followed him being invalid. Another group, in turn, affirms that all Popes since John XXIII are merely material, but not formal ones, rejecting also their validity (Sedeprivationism).

Although, within Christianity, Roman Catholicism has generally been more aggressive in pushing an ecumenical agenda, it would be a mistake to think that the other major denominations do not have parts of them interested in pursuing the same goals, with the ensuing controversy between those in favour and those who see the dangers to which this can easily lead.

The aforementioned fears extend, for example, to the current Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and to modern Protestantism. Regarding the latter, R.J. Rushdoony stated:

“[…] The Protestant Reformation asserted the priority of truth to unity; Modernist Protestantism increasingly denies the possibility of their conflict—implicitly accepting authoritarian unity: truth is unity, and unity is truth. Ecumenicity (all churches in one) is of itself therefore deemed both good and necessary.”¹⁸Rushdoony, R.J. (1971). The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy. Chalcedon / Ross House Books, p. 12.

Obviously, a changing theology implies the presupposition of an evolving truth, which in turn is usually achieved through a dialectical process.

The affirmation that one worldview is true does not imply the affirmation that everything in the alternative worldviews is wrong. Obviously, it also does not imply that the development of this worldview in history is free from errors, deviations and problems due to historical contingencies and the “human factor”.

However, there is a big difference between saying that truth is the lowest common denominator found in all religious or mystical worldviews (Perennialism) or that they all share some degree of truth but only one of them is true as such.

The first position is, again, one of the horns of the old dialectical tension between the One and the Many, the other being Relativism.

Relativism (the Many) implicitly states that all worldviews are ultimately false because truth does not exist as it is usually understood, being definable by each person, community or culture. Perennialism or Traditionalism (the doctrines of the One), on the other hand, state that all traditional worldviews are true, but only when their particularities that make them unique are discarded as superfluous additions to the basic tenets that they all share in common.

Through a generalist “spiritual / mystical / esoteric-but-not-religious” position such as the latter, however, and by only looking after vague commonalities between worldviews, we cannot but arrive at an impoverished and fuzzy notion of a God-in-general. This notion of God, in turn, usually takes the form of Panentheism, with whom no personal relation can be established. This, probably, is why even René Guénon, one of the founders of Traditionalism, insisted so much on the necessity of involving ourselves in the whole life (both exoteric and esoteric) of our chosen tradition instead of dabbling in the generalities that all compatible worldviews share in common.¹⁹Dickson, William Rory. Handbook of Islamic Sects and Movements. Chapter 25: René Guénon and Traditionalism. Brill, pp. 589–611.

“During his years in Egypt Guénon’s sense of the importance of having an orthodox religious form within which to practice the esoteric path crystalised. He would eventually conclude that authentic initiation is always an integral part of a complete religious tradition, with its doctrines, rituals and rules all collectively forming a living, organic whole. To isolate one aspect of a religious tradition from others, or to mix elements of different traditions, was to destroy this organic coherence and the providential power it transmitted. This was precisely what he accused Theosophy of, and why he considered it to be a counterinitiatory tradition. In his Initiation et réalisation spirituelle (1952), Guénon concisely articulates the Traditionalist position on the necessity of following a particular religious form: “Whoever makes himself out to be a spiritual teacher without attaching himself to a specific traditional form, or without conforming to the rules established by the latter, cannot truly possess the qualifications he appropriates to himself” (Guénon 2004 [1952]:110). […]”

A Both / And understanding of the problem, in contrast, would note that there is only one truth (as truth, by definition, cannot be multiple), while acknowledging that many worldviews share a part of this truth. It would acknowledge the “shards of truth” found everywhere while offering the rest in order to restore the whole picture, recontextualizing specific doctrines where needed, and without the need to sugarcoat the fact that some worldviews may be closer to the truth than others.

This is the position of Orthodox Christianity, most famously found in the writings of St. Justin Martyr:

“[…] For all writers through the implanted seed of the Logos which was engrafted in them, were able to see the truth darkly, for the seed and imitation of a thing which is given according to the capacity of him who eceives it is one thing, and quite a different one is the thing itself of which the communication and the imitation are received according to the grace from God …for whatever either lawgivers of philosophers uttered well, they elaborated by finding and contemplating some part of the Logos. But since they did not know the entire Logos, which is Christ, they often contradicted themselves… Christ… was and is the Logos who is in every man.”

— St. Justin Martyr. The Second Apology. Para. 10

St. Justin, clarifying the role of reason within Christianity²⁰Contrary to some common misconceptions, original patristic Christianity is not antiintellectual. To the contrary, a good theological understanding of the notion of Jesus Christ as the Logos (meaning the Word, but also Reason) and His logoi (the individual words or reasons behind everything in existence), shows how it emphasizes the judiciously use of reason without giving it the absolute primacy over revelation as the philosophers did, which can lead to error, as reason alone is insufficient to provide knowledge about higher levels of existence., noted that “In every man there is a divine particle, his reason, which at least before Christ’s coming was man’s best guide in life.”²¹Goodenough, Erwin R. (2022). The Theology of Justin Martyr. Legare Street Press, p. 214 (citing Ap. II 10.8).

It is, then, man’s prerogative to live in accordance with reason, instead of against or without it. The possibility of doing this already points towards Christ, the principle of Reason that, as we saw when sketching the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG), cannot be explained by purely materialist axiomatic presuppositions.

This implies that living in accord with the right reason is at the same time participating in Divine Reason (the Logos). Therefore, participation in God is not seen as exclusive to Christians but applies to all persons, irrespective of their faith. As St. Justin clearly stated:

“We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them”.

— St. Justin Martyr. The First Apology. Chapter 46: the Word in the world before Christ

St. Justin took the Stoic pantheist concept of Logos Spermatikos (σπερματικός λόγος) and adapted its meaning to the Christian Trinitarian revelation. These divine sparks in men (logoi spermatokoi) became, then, not part of the same substance (homoousios) of an impersonal Logos as in Stoicism, but shared on God´s divinity or Uncreated Energies (homoiousious). Interpenetration instead of fusion; the One and the Many instead of the One; “You are like God” (Imago Dei [Genesis 1:27]) instead of “You are God”.

These, according to St. Justin, would be the “seeds of truth” or “seeds of reason” that allow us to perceive the reason (logoi) behind everything in creation, which the Logos conceived in Himself and willed into existence, declaring it to be good (Genesis 1:31).

Therefore, these sparks of reason provide a common, non-confessional ground and a theological basis by which each one of us, irrespective of faith, is called to participate in God’s Reason or Logos, out of which he can get closer to truth and be capable of judging right and wrong.

1. Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. Fr. Seraphim Rose.
2. The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II: An Orthodox Examination of Rome’s Ecumenical Theology Regarding Baptism and the Church. Fr. Peter Heers.

1. Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago. “What are Ecumenical Relations?”. Retrieved 24 September 2020: “Ecumenical relations, also known as ecumenism, are the effort to seek Christian unity by cultivating meaningful relationships and understanding by and between the many different Christian churches and Christian Communities.”
2. Heers, Fr. Peter (2018). On the Essential Identity of Ecumenism & Phyletism. Orthodox Ethos. Retrieved November 2023 [Fr. Heers can sometimes be a controversial figure for some people. Please, do your own research].
3. Which echoes the words of the serpent in Genesis, promising Self-Deification: “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” ― Genesis 3:4-6. New King James Version.
4. “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” ― 1 John 4:3. New King James Version.
5. Heers, Fr. Peter (2018). On the Essential Identity of Ecumenism & Phyletism. Orthodox Ethos. Retrieved November 2023.
6. The concept of an Avatar found in many Dharmic religions would be, in contrast, compatible with a syncretic unified religion, as Avatars are mere modalist and temporary manifestations of the One.
7. Which headlines one of the pages on its website as: “The United Nations: Manifesting the Vision of the One humanity”.
8. Gaudium et spes [Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World]. II Vatican council. Rome, Italy: Vatican.
9. Brewer, John D.; Higgins, Gareth I.; Teeney, Francis (2011). Religion, Civil Society, and Peace in Northern Ireland. Oxford University Press: “Vatican II, by eliminating Latin prayers, offended traditional Catholics […].”
10. Paolo VI (1969). Sanctitas clarior – Lettera Apostolica in forma di Motu Proprio con la quale sono riordinati i processi per le cause di beatificazione e canonizzazione (vatican.va).
11. Malone, Michael. “Twenty-five explicit errors of Vatican Council II”.
12. Dransart, Penny (1992). “Pachamama: The Inka Earth Mother of the Long Sweeping Garment”. Dress and Gender: Making and Meaning. Ed. Ruth Barnes and Joanne B. Eicher. New York/Oxford: Berg. 145-63.
13. Merlino, Rodolfo; Rabey, Mario (1983). Pastores del Altiplano Andino Meridional: Religiosidad, Territorio y Equilibrio Ecológico. Allpanchis (in Spanish). Cusco, Perú. 15 (21): 149–171.
14. Marzal, Manuel (2002). Tierra encantada: Tratado de antropología religiosa de América Latina. Editorial Trotta. pp. 198–205.
15. Ibid., p. 414.
16. BBC News (October 25, 2019). “Pope Francis’s apology over Amazon statues theft”.
17. The Guardian (October 31, 2019).“The Guardian view on ‘pagan idols’ in the Vatican: church culture wars should concern us all”. Retrieved September 8, 2021.
18. Rushdoony, R.J. (1971). The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy. Chalcedon / Ross House Books, p. 12.
19. Dickson, William Rory. Handbook of Islamic Sects and Movements. Chapter 25: René Guénon and Traditionalism. Brill, pp. 589–611.

    “During his years in Egypt Guénon’s sense of the importance of having an orthodox religious form within which to practice the esoteric path crystalised. He would eventually conclude that authentic initiation is always an integral part of a complete religious tradition, with its doctrines, rituals and rules all collectively forming a living, organic whole. To isolate one aspect of a religious tradition from others, or to mix elements of different traditions, was to destroy this organic coherence and the providential power it transmitted. This was precisely what he accused Theosophy of, and why he considered it to be a counterinitiatory tradition. In his Initiation et réalisation spirituelle (1952), Guénon concisely articulates the Traditionalist position on the necessity of following a particular religious form: “Whoever makes himself out to be a spiritual teacher without attaching himself to a specific traditional form, or without conforming to the rules established by the latter, cannot truly possess the qualifications he appropriates to himself.”[…] (Guénon 2004 [1952]:110). 

20. Contrary to some common misconceptions, original patristic Christianity is not anti-intellectual. To the contrary, a good theological understanding of the notion of Jesus Christ as the Logos (meaning the Word, but also Reason) and His logoi (the individual words or reasons behind everything in existence), shows how it emphasizes the judiciously use of reason without giving it the absolute primacy over revelation as the philosophers did, which can lead to error, as reason alone is insufficient to provide knowledge about higher levels of existence.
21. Goodenough, Erwin R. (2022). The Theology of Justin Martyr. Legare Street Press, p. 214 (citing Ap. II 10.8).