Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

.

---

Edirorial and Sllbsc rip tion Offices

575 Scarsdale Road, C restwood, NY 10707

TeL: + 1 9 14,961 83 13

EMail : Sv t'l@, yo ts.edu & SV tq-subscrip tions@svo ts.edu

Website: www,svo tS.ed u/ SVTQ

CONTENTS
Copy right © 2009 bv St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Semin ary

. . FROM n-tE "RETURN TO THE FATHERS" TO THE NEED FORA '


Back issues ate . vaib!>le· o'n microfilm froIU University Microfilm :
MODER}'! ORTHODOX THEOLOGY
YEARLY SUBSCR IPT ION S5000 CANADiAN $50 .00 US Funds _,'"" _p'ameU,s
_ ....: ~ -. 0_
. __ ""
Kalai,zidis . , . _, . - , , . . . . ,{',. ',_ .".. t' .... '~" ',..}X)o
_,_.~_..._
.o.....-~
5",·..:.o:\
.--.
.'-""I,l..~~ '.... . •.- ...... ,~:. :;.....-!':...::.- ':.'.. +:- '. ,:;.,r .~ ~~:..-,:,_....:.a
FOREI G N %9.00 U SFund~ . SINGLE ISSUES $20.00
, _:;_: " , ;'HE~~I,l!A;)~.,NO ,BRIDE": ST THECLA AND THE RELA~~Ht)i fi~-&"'_"'F ~""-.,;" : ·' -'--'~
~~ ~~ ~~--~
' :----~----~--------------­
'
'y

tf~~ J~~ .s~r:-.;r.!':£N SEX, GENDER, AND OFFICE '. f' ~J(: '£ ii( "':;-', .
~,{h~ v!t~'s pC d, ~ autho rs \\'hosorticles appea r in

:},f;J.:Lrdil!lij~.Jheolq,~irni c0illi'tcr!y do not necessa rily

:,!;;~~., rt:fiecr i0.Cl5c: of~hc .Sc!nina r"y f~culry.


1:~~;~~·p~.vi~j.:DU~~ .-_:' , . , , '.". '." . '." : , ~ . " .( :" I~~~~,;r)?)j~::~
~ 1- ~ 'AWITNESS 'TO THEOSISEFFECTED:MAXIMUSCONFE ~rb&'ON ' .~ .. ,>-- .
' ~';;"" . i;.~~~~~~;:~:ER ..... ..", .iift0~:;\':I:~r,'r;;i\~~ ':~c

~- ",
::;: • '+ ', • ,...

:Ill is periodical is B~~<'d.j"1l ~he ·'\(L}'.: 1).~ligttlll'batJbase:and included in.ATLA Serials'"


(,lTLAS'''j, an onlil)!, collection of major ~cli g ion and theology journals. published by the .: :-.';;.,..J . ~, . '-'~ ", \~'~ l'"\': ' .' " ,J ;./". j~t~;: , .f ,~.- ..i ~"~ ~ ]... (~..~~ ~.;. M

~A?!e ..ican Thco logfc.;Tl.i b~r:ir\'Associaliojl._390:S_~·~~k,e:}<r, Sui te2 100. Chi,c~g?,,lL!~9(j.Oy." ; ;~jit_' . J CH-l1\( n~';l<i~~~S-NOTIONO F BE-Itl,/ii·ESS'ENCE VS. V'~:·!." -~-,~ :;;':;-.~' ~ijt;~' ';
. ' . p

..cnuil!.arLtGrath.col:p,w~b~l*l.!1't·ttp :/;~w"'w.ada.com. '. ~ - ­

Bo::~!I~rEN,::t.:(:,.t··· .' r~::" "'r::Ei1~~~


'\~

,'
.

... ~ ".,;~1l:?!~~4
-
. '.
Nor.mah~us-s~ll, The Dow-ine ofDeification in the Greek Patristic
Tmditi(Jn (O~ Pord -.universicy Press, 2004) .. , , . ," _ : 10
.. ­
Michael Ma~;, ed" The Cambridge Companion to the Age ofJustinia n
(Cambridge: Cambridge Universicy Press, 2005) .. , " _"" " - . 110
Lewis J Patsavos, A Noble Task : Entl] into the Clergy in the First Five
Centuries (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2007) ,. , - 118

CONTRIBUTORS
, 121
Typeset by Glen RJ. ~! uks , Ne w Rochelle. NY

Printed by

ATHEN S PRI NTI NG COI>-lI'ANY


337 \Ve st 36th Street

._-=--O:::=-J
Q~
N ew York, NY 1001 8-6401

a60HeMeHT ._<":~ Gi--'


__.
~~
' i [lbK:;t0­
I.,
BH.l~a£T b CR • 4'>/- '''''_ .J )
'",' 3 '':''. I
-- :ca::",. .......• ,-::;;:.~---:. (~",(
~
i::.1~ll\O t,
... r - W·
\..
_,'.n ).:0

t. '~:>'-... __ <~~~~~./
& cRI_..... ~ t

St Vladimir j Theological f0artcr/y 54,1 (2010) 5- 36

FROM THE "RETURN TO THE FATHERS" TO THE


NEED FOR A MODERN ORT H ODOX T H E OL OGY

Pan telis Kalai tzidis 1

The "Return to the Fathers"


. In the First Orthodox Theological Conference, whi ch was held
'.' i in . Athens in 1936, Fr G eorges Florovsky, perhaps the gn;atest
Orthodox theologian of the 20th century and modern Orthodoxy's
m6st important ecumenical figure (being one of the co-founders
ofthe World Council of Churches, and a distinguished member
orand speaker for the Faith and Order Commission), proclaimed
Orthodox theology's need to "re turn to th e Fathers" and to be
released from its "Babylonian captivity" to Western the ology
iri -terms of its lang uage, its presuppositions, and its thinking. 2
In deed, he would often rerum to this text with his use of the term
"pseudo morphosis" to describe the long process ofLatinization and
Westernization of Russian the ology.3 His call was quickly adopted

A slightly shorrer version of rhis papcr was preseneed ar rhe WOCATI -ETE/WCC
imernarional Congress. held ar rhe Volos Aq demy for Theological Srudies in Vo­
los. Greece on June S. 2008. This paper was translared fro m Modern Greek by Fr
Gregory Edwards (exc epr rhe quorarions from rhe book by P. Kalairzid is, Orthodox),
and lviodernity: An introduction [Arhens: lndikros Publicarions. 2007), rr. Elizaberh
Theokrirolf).
2 Th e pape r was originally preseneed in Ge rman ar rh is conference: cf. G. Florovsky,
"\Vesdiche Einfliisse in der russischen Theolog ie:' in Proces-Verbaux du Premier Con ­
a
gres de Iheologie Orthodoxe Athenes, 29 novembre-6 dricembre 1936, Ham. S. Alivi­
saws (e d.) (A rh ens: Pyrsos. 1939) , 2 12- 3 1; rhe same (exr may be found in Kyrios, I I,
nr I (Berlin. 1937). 1- 22. English rranslarion (by T. Bird and R. Haugh): "Wes(ern
Influences in Russian Th eology" in Collected Works o/Georges Fforovsky, vol. 4: As­
pects o/Chui'Ch History (Vaduz: Biichervemiebsans (al(. 1987), 1S7 -82.
3 G. Florovsky. "\Vesrcrn Influences in Russian Theology:' op cit, passim. C f. idem.
YVttys o/Russian TheoLogy, parr I, rransl. by R. L. Nichols, volume Sin Co!!ected Works
of Georges Ffwovsky (Belmone. MA:No rdland . 1979) and parr II , rr. R. L. Nichols
5
6 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
- "Return to the Fathers" and Modern Orthodox Theology 7

and shared by many theologians of the Russian Diaspo ra, especially "return to the Fathers" became the hallmark of and the dominant
by the emigre theologian Vladimir Lossky, but also by Archimandrite "paradigm" for Orthodox theology for the better part of tnt 20th
Cyprian Cern, Archbishop Basil Krivocheine, Myra Lot-Borodine, century, and for many its primary task to such a degree that this
FrJohn Meyendorffand others. He also gathered fervent supporters celebrated "return to the Fathers" and the effort to "de-\vesternize"
in traditionally Orthodox countries, such as Greece, Serbia, and Orthodox theology overshadowed all other theological questions,
Romania; the cases of the distinguished Orthodox theologians as well as all the challenges the modern world had posed-and
Fr Dumitru Staniloae (from Romani a), Fr Justin Popovic (from continues to pose-to Orthodox theology, while other Orthodox
Serbia), and the Greek theologians of the generation of the theological trends, such as the Russian school of theology, faded
4
1960s are very characteristic. 1he theological. movement of the from view. While the emblematic figure of this movement was,
without question, Fr Georges Florovsky, we must not ignore or
vo1.6, in Collected YVOrks ofGeorges Florovsky (Vaduz: Bucher ve r-rriei:>Sanstalt, 198;) ..
On the origin and use of rh e rerm "pseudomorphosis" in the work of Fr Florovsky, underestimate the decisive contributions of other theologians, such
s.ee: N. Kazarian, "La notion de pseudomorPhiJse chez Os\\Yald Spengler et Georges as those mentioned above, in its crystallization-to such a degree,
"I ; Flor.ovsky" (unpublished paper presented ar rhe In ~ernati.oQal Coilferencc ' '' Le Per¢ in fact, that many of the positions which ultimately prevailed stand
Georges Floro vsky er Ie renouvealJ de la rheologie orthod ox.e,au 20e siecle," Sr Sergius
Insricure, Paris, November 27-28, 2009 ). For a criricai approach to Fr Florovsky's in stark contrast totne known theological sensibilities of Florovsky
theor\" of "pseud o morphosis:' cf. Dororhea \'1end~boutg, · 'Pseudomorphosis': A himself (e.g., "ahead withthe Fathers;' the openness of history, etc.),
The ological Judgement as an Axiom for..ReseaYch' in the, H isto ry of Ch urch and The- .. thus attributing even more conservative features to a movement th at
ology," The Greek Orthodox Theological Rev,iew.42 (1997) : ~21 -42 . .
. already by its very nature ("return;' etc.) included such elements.
4 Am9ng rhe G reek rheologians we oughr (0 no re rwo well-known figures in parcicll­
br,:\let rop61iran John D . ZizioL< las a~d 'Fr']ohn S.Romallides. Both were disrin~< '. The 20th century was, therefore, a time of renewal for Onho­
glli.,l; eJ disciples of Fr FloroV.sky anJr~pre:S.e ntarivesof rhe ':neo'parrisric synth esis" " '. doxtheology, which for the first time in mapy Centuries, due.to thE
and.of rh e "rerum. [0 rhe 'I:adlers,",bu, each rO.o k a different path in rhe contemporary. ~. L n iil.cfljlence of the Orthodox Diasporaandthe ecumenical dialogue,
O rth odox theologid wodd ..Jn his wrirings, Metropoliran o fPergamo n]ohn Zizio'.
ulas :Ecunlcnical 'Parriarch ar(:), has tried co articula re a crearive version of rhe"neo­
. .' ventured ou t from its tradi tional Strongholds ancl. ini.t iated a discus­
parrisricsYllchesis" which is open co contemporary philosophical thought and co the . sian with other Christian traditions. It thus attempted to move its
dialogue berween Eas r and \'1esr, consrancJy repeating rhe necessity of a rheological identity and self-consciousness beyond the dominant academic
synehesis ofEasrern and \'1estern rrad itions, wirh out which there is no real carholic"
scholasticism and pietism of the late 19th century by adopting the
it y for [he Chu rch (cf. for inscance rhe "Ineroduction" to his class ic work Being as
Communion [Ctesrwood, NY: SVS Press, 1985 J, especially pp. 25 -26). According form of a "neo-patristic syntheSis;' the distinctive mark of which
to some intetpterers, Zizi oulas, although he remains fairhful to the Cappadocian
concepts (for example ), nevertheless is "thinking wi th the fathers beyond the fathers" proved his theological acumen. Neverrheless, [he appearance of Fr Romanides' Ro"
(A. Papanikolaou , Apophaticism v. OntologT A Stu d), 0/ Vladimir Lossk), and john miosyne (Romanit y) in 1975 marked a dramaric turning poine in his work, which
Zizioulas, PhD Disserrarion [Chicago: The University of Chicago School of Divin" drifted from rheology to cultural cri ricism, erhno-rheology and anei-wes ternism.
ity, 1998 ], 250< Cf. rhe more tempe rate analysis of A. Brown, "On the C riticism of From thai poine, the polarizarion berween a Greek and Latin ·speaking "Roman·
Being as Com;;'union in Anglophone Orthodox Theology:' in Douglas Knight (ed.), ity:' on rhe one hand, and a "Frankism" on the orher, became ceneral to Romanides'
The Theology o/john Zizioulas (Aldershot, Hanes & Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007). work, as he saw Frankism as endlessly co nspiring to exte rminare Romaniry. The lack
., 52,66). The Rev Dr John Romanides open ed a new path for Greek theology in th e of an eschatOlogical perspenive combined with a peculiar form of imman eneism in
late 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s and represented a hopeful example of a Romanides' co rpus (an immaneneism entailed in his rheological blueprint of "put i­
"neo"patris ric" theolo gian. In his docroral dissertarion (The Ancestral Sin, Athens, fication, illuminarion, and rheosis") firs in perfectly with the as criprion of a "sacred
1955 (English tr. by G. S. Gabriel, Z ephyr Pub!., 2002)), Romanides reproaches Or­ geography" to Romaniry, preseneed rherein as a sacred realm inhabited by th e hal­
th odox rheology's srifling confinement to borh scho lasticism and academism, sug­ lowed race of the Romans, the new chosen people who are, excl usively, receprive to
gesting as an alrernative the healing ethos of Orthodoxy with a thoroughness that salvation.

'<-­
- 8 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
-
"Return to the Fathers" and Modern Orthodox Th eology 9

was the "existential" character of theology,S and the definition of a passing stage" in the Church,S and which is integrally connec ted
which contrasts rep etition or imitation to synthesis, while combin­ with Hellenism, patristics, and catholicity,9 eventually helped
ing fidelity to tradition with renewal. G But, despite its innovative consolidate th e idea that we need ed constantly to take refuge in
moments, it seems that the 20th century-precisely because of the the Church's past-and, in this case, the Fathers in particular-so
way in which this "return to the Fathers" was perceived and of the that we could be certain that we were within the limits of the truth,
corresponding program to "de-westernize" Orthodox theology­ This version of the "return to the Fathers;' moreover, seems never to
was also for Orthodox theology a time of introversion, conserva­ remrn to a focus on the future "together wi th Fathers" (as Florovsky
tism, and of a static or fundamentalist understanding of the concept himself advocated in both his writings an d his talks) , thus rendering
of Tradition, which very often came to be equated with traditional­ . Orthodox theology mute and un easy in the face of the challenges
ism. Thus, just as some Protestant churches still suffer from a certain of the modern world. We Orthodox thus seem to be satisfied wi th
level of fundamentalism regarding the Bible or biblical texts, the the strong sense of tradition that distinguish es us, inasmuch as the ·
Orthodox Church, foriHpan, often finds itselftrapped and fro zen· OJ;:thodox, more than anyo ther Christian confession, havep res.e rved ., '
.' ... in a "fundamentalism of"tradition" orina "fundamentalism of
.. -I ,·" . _. . the w holeness obhe theology, spiritual inheritance, andpiety of ·-"
the Fath ers;' which makes,-ic hard for it to wo rk Out in practice its the undivid ed Church. As a result of thisperceptiori, very often' the
pneumatology and its charismatic di mensio n. This prevents it from Orthodox world is unable to see ano ther mission and ano therfu nc­
being part ofor in dialQgqewith the modern world, and discour­ "•. rion for theology today apart from the continual re-turn to its sources
ages it from displaying its creative gifts and strengths. '· .and roots, or the repetition an d "translation" into modern p arlance
" Indeed, the ,particulady defensive way o f l!nderstanding FlorQv~ !-­ ,orehe wri tings of the Fathers of the Ch urch? wh ich the past, gUided ·
L.. s k-y~_ ': re turn to the Fathers" an d the .systematizationofhis th~o r y : by the Holy Spirit, ha$deposi ted imo ,the.m:asury of the fai th, thus
aQ0qE ~'.c"~hristian H ellenism;' which considers the latter to .b e~," the' t:~ i- ;. ~ ;~

r. ete,;n~rcategory of Christian existence:'7 and' "somethi ng mo re tha..h 8 G. Flo rovsky, "Ways of Russian ThcoI6gy;'i·op i.c1 (,-195. Cf Id em, vVtiys ofRussian
Th eology, in Collected Wo rk.io/GeorgesF/ordvsky, vol. 6, 297.
· 5 . . Cf for example G. Florovsky; "Pan-istic Th eology and the· Ethos of rheOrr bodox 9 "In a sense the C hurch itsdfi~' H ellenis tic, is a Hellenistic for mation -in oth er wo rds.
Chur ch" in Collected Works 0/ Georges Floyovsky , voL 4: AJpects oj Church History H ellen ism is a sranding catego ry o f C hristian existence. ( ... ) let us be more Greek ro
(Vadu z: Bucherverrriebsanstalt, 1987), 17. According to Metropolitan John Z izio ulas be tr uly carholic, to be uuly orthodox:' G, Fl orovsky, "Parrisrics and Modern Theol­
(" Fr Georges Florovsky: Th e Ecumenical Teacher;' Spax!s, iss ue 64 (1997): 14-15 (in ogy;' in Proces-Verbaux clu Premier Congres de Theologie Orthodoxe d Athenes, op cir,
Greek]): "The main goal of theology was, for hi m (Sc. Florovsky)' the 'neo-parr isti c sy n­ 2.4 1-42. Cf also his article: "The Christ ian Hdlenism;' Orthodox Observer, no. 442
.. thesis; which means, as we shall see, a deepe r quest for the existential sense of patristic (Januar y 1957): 10: "Let us be more 'Hellenic' in order that we may be uuly Chris­
theology and its synthesis, which requires rare creative skills and a gifi: fo r synt hesis." tian ." A n exha ustive analysis and ctitique of these ideas o fFlorovsky ca n be found in
6 Cf., for instan ce, Fr Florovsky's "rheological resra ment;' published by A. Blane, my docroral dissertation: P. Kalaitzidis, Hellenicity and Anti-westernism in the G;'eek
Georges Floi"ovsky: Russian Intellectual, Orthodox Churchman (C res twood, NY: SVS Theological Generation 0/ the 60's, School of The ology, Arisro de Universi ty of Thes­
Press, [993), !,54: "Ir is by rhat way that I was led quite early to the idea of what I am salon iki, 2.008, especially pp. 173 - 205 [in Greek). Cf idem, T hellenisme chf<! tien
calling now 'th e Neo-Parristic Synthesis.' It should be mo re rhan jusr a collectio n o f du Pere Georges Flo rovsky er les theologi ens grecs de la generation de '60" (unp ub­
Patristi c sayings Ot statements . It mu st be a synthesis, a crearive reassessment of those lishe d paper presented at the Internatio nal Co nference: "Le Pere Georges Florovsky
insights which were granted ro the Holy Men of old. It must be Patristic, fa irhful ro et Ie renouveau de la theo logie orrhod oxe au 20e siecle," St Sergiu s Insti tute, Paris,
th e spirit and vision of the Fathers, ad mentem Pat;'um. Yet, it must be also Neo-Pa­ November 27 - 28 , 2009). Cf. also, M. Srokoe, Christian H ellenism, th esis submit­
tristic, since it is ro be addressed to the new age , with its own problems and queries." ted in part ial fulfillment of the requ iremenrs for th e degtee of Master of Divinity
7 G. Florovsky, "Ways of Russian Theolog y," in Collected Wo;~ks 0/ Georges Floro vsky, (S t Vladimir's Orthodox 111eological Seminary, Ap ril 17, 198 1), according to whom
vol. 4: A spects o/Church History, 195. Cf idem, T-f/a)'s o/Russian Theology, in Collected "Cnristian Hellenism" cou ld be considered a model of contextual theol ogy resp o nd ­
Works o/Georges Flo ro-vsk)" vo l. 6, 297. ing ro the needs and expectations of every age and society.

I I
___ ,L
--
10 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY "Retum to the Fathers" and 1I1odern Orthodox Theology 11

creating a peculiar kind of Monophys itism. The latter leads to the tion and premonition. The future is not merely something
depreciation, obsolescence, and even elimination of human reason, exacted o[ awaited-it ' is something created. The Christian
inasmuch as it believes that there is nothing more to say, since the calling inspires us exactly with the responsibility of duty [... ]
Fathers have said everything that needs to be said once and for all, Orthodoxy is not only a tradition, it is a task [... ]. And genu­
ine historical synthesis lies not in interpreting the past, but in
and since patristic theology contains the solution to every problem
creatively fulfilling the futureY
in the past, present, and future. Yet, human reason, like all of human
riature, was fully assumed by the hypostasis of God the Word in the Florovsky's insistence, however, on the timelessness and eternal­

Inci.rnation, and was fully deified during the Ascension of the Lord, ness of Christian Hellenism, i.e., in the necessity of Greek catego~

when he ascended to the right hand of the Father. ries of thought for the formulation and expression of the eternal

It is true, as we already noted above, that Florovsky always empha­ truth of the Gospel in every time and place, as well as his refusal

sized that the "returri to the Fathers" did not mean the repetition to examine-along with "back to ihe ,Fathers"and "ahead with

or j,m jtaticn of the pasf,cbnfined to its various forms;cir an escape ' the Fathers" -even the possibility of"b~.y,o ndthe Fathers;' l-argely

froiTihistoly,a deni al of the present and history. Onthe cbmf-a:ry; · - ~0 :. f · negates his theology's openness and orien:c atiolltothe future, Floro­
what he continually stressed and highlighted was a creative [editn ' . ' . vsky could understand the "return'tothe'Fathers';'ih terms ofere at iv­
and' meeting with the spirit of the Fathers, -the acquisi tiori 'ofthe ity and renewal; he could also passionately ,proclaim "ahead with
(~. mind of the Fathers (admentem patrum), and the creative £111£111'­ the Fathers"; however, whacuhiniately se,SJ!1s ~o prevail in his:work,
m6~tof the fucure. JO In':the words ofFr Georges Florovskyihi'ITlself, . primarily in how it was underst6~)d .l and; interpretedby his follow­
In"a meaningful extract ·from the last chap\er of his ~ dassic work, ers, is the element of"return.':"'T he caU to "return to the Fathers" did
vvays o/Russian Iheology:" . . . . :): . notsimply offer an -iden.tityand acharaqer with whichOnho.dox
....' :: .-, ! Orthodox theolog); ~ifri' r~toverits indep'endence from west­
:theologianscouldmove through the terrible upheavals of th~2Qth ·
ern influence onfy dli;ottgh a spirit~ari-eturn to its patristic centmy and survive,spiritually and intellectually.12 He provided an' \'
sources and foundations. Returning to ,the fathers, howeve r, easily digestible slogan and a sense of security and warmth amid a
does not mean abandoning the preseniage, escap ing from collapsing Christendom.
history, or quitting the field of battle. Patristic experience We .should note here that the movement to "return to the ·

must not only be preserved, but it must be discovere d and Fathers" is not a unique phenomenon that has taken place only

brought into life. Independence from the non-Orthodox among the Orthodox. As I demonstrated in a recent article,13 the

West need not become es trangement from it. A break with starting point for every church reform movement has been a move­

the West would provide no real liberation. Orthodox thought ment to "return to the sources;' and this is precisely what we see in

must perceive and suffer the western trials and temptations, the same period in the Protestant world with dialectical theology,

and, for ns own sake, it cannot afford to avoid and keep silent
II G. Florovsky, ]IUlys o/Russian Theology, p. II, in Collected Works 0/ Georges FLorovsky,

over them. [... ] The future is more truly and profoundly


vol. 6, 301, 308,

revealed when seen as an obligation rather as an expecta­ 12 For sim ilar remarks, cf B. Gallaher, "'Waiting for the Barbarians': Identity and Po­

lemicism in Georges Florovsky" (unpublished paper presented at the International

10 Cf for instance, G, Florovsky "Patristic Theology and the Ethos of the Orthodox Conference: "Le Pere Georges Florovsky et Ie renouveau de la theologie onhodoxe

Church;' in Co!!ected Works o/Georges Florovsky, vol. 4: Aspects o/Church History, op au 20e siecle;' 5t Sergius Institute, Paris, November 27-28, 2009),

cit, 18,20-22, ibid, "Western Influ ences in Russian Theology;' 180-82, ibid. "The 13 p, Kalaitzidis, "Challenges of Renewal and Reformation Facing the Orthodox

Ways of Russian Th eology," 208-209. Church," The Ecumenical Review 61 (2009): especially 144-46,

14 - 'ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY



"Return to the Fathers" and Modern Orthodox Theology , -- -15

partaking in che condicion of modernicy, Ie would be wrong, The Consequences o/the TheologicalMovement to "Return to the
however, co claim chac chese cwo approaches accoune for the Fathers"
eneire range of Orchodox responses to modernicy, chey did , " "
noc in the 1930s and chey do noc today, A large speccrum of The consequ~nces of thl~ ~eturn t~ the Fathers and the subseq~ent
Orchodoxy today seems nor to engage wich modernic ac all, over-emphasIs on patristlc studIes were, among other thmgs:
it simply turns away from it, condemns it or tries toYrecon­ (1) the neglect and devaluation of biblical studies; (2) an ahistOrical
srruct itself oueside of it IS approach co patristic theology and a subsequent exaltation of
It thus becomes clear that the issue of modernity and the dilemma tradition~lism; (3) a tendency tOward introversion and 0 rtho~ox
whether to go "back to the fathers" or "beyond the fathers" are of theology s near tOtal absence from, the major theologIcal
crucial importance [or our discussion, The Russian school oftheol­ ' ,developments and trends of the 20th century; (4) the polarization
ogy seemed to be more open both to the issues raised by the modern of East and West~ ,and ~he ~ultivation and consolidation of an a~ti- ,
world and to the need for a post-patristic' theology. Fr Alexander western and antl-ecumemcal Splflt; and (5) a weak theologIcal
Schmemann describes its'th eological t~SK: ' , response to the· challenges posed by the modern world ~!ld, ~oFe
rthodo'x: 'h' ' I <'~ " "'k' " . " " ,'. C d ' '' ' generally; the ul1I;esolVed theological issues still remainipg j ~n the
( eo.og) must eep ItS pacns[lc rOun atlons, bue ' . '" . '. '
, 0 '

, it must also /:)ero "b-: e',)~'o'-


" n ri';
-, -teat
'h-- F h ers
,: "If' , It
,:-'
' -15
. to respon d to a '\ ' , between Orthodoxy. and
rehtlonshlp , modermty.
" , , - ~" , >
new situation created by' ceneuries ofphilosophical develop­ , -1. _Wlthm the Orthodox mIlieu, blblic,al studle; h~d alrea~y
menL And in this i'lew synehesisor reconstruction the west- -oi ~~i' :~', ' , .,'~u;ffered neglect;nmv ,there was a theoretlcalJustlOca.tlOI)~ fg\" It. ,
ern philosophical rraarl:ion (soi.irce anurn'oither of rl~e RussiaI1' , I ;' L fl ' : ' '~ li3iblicaJ studies were viewed as "Protestant;' while.patristic.srudies'
"religious philosop-h( of the 19ch and 20th centuries) rather r " " ' ; " and, the rediscover.y of the Orthodox ascetic and neptic tradition
h th:1 n the Hellenistf<:, must supply theologr,V-~ithits:concepttial ;,,;. "i". : '~: . \yere consideredtl1e ,tr'IJ!Y "Orthodox" ~lIbje~t~, .~!1 spite of theprolif .
" '. ", ~,;
; .... '
..,!.~ .. ,:~ ., ~ramework. ,-f1-n :ttempt 1.S thus made: to ;'tr'a'nspose" theologyt!, ::,::'
I. : eration ofpatristic studies in the-se<,:of\Q ,half of the 20th century
". , lntO.~ new key, and ,this transpositiohisconsjden~das rhd " both in the OrthodQxIDiaspor<J; ,~l'ldirLthe traditionally Orthodox
, speC! c task and vocatlon of Russian theology;,l:l' ,~' , 'l , countries, and the subsequent strengthening of the characteristic
, Unfortunately, the connection between this theoloaicaltrend"":'" theological features of Orthodox ''identity;' the role of biblical stud­
particularly in the person of Bulgakov-and Ger;an idealism ies in our theological bedrock was still an open question, such that,
and Sophiology, and the ensuing dogmatic battle with Lossky and as is well known, we Orthodox continue to underestimate or even
Florovsky, rendered it, for all intents and purposes; a dead letter be suspicious of biblical studies and biblical research, even to the
and made it impossible for decades to have any serious discussion point that we regard the reading and study of the Bible as a Protes­
about the potential for a post-patristic theology within Orthodoxy, tant practice that is at odds with the Orthodox patristic and neptic
thus}eaving ~h,~ "return to the Fathers" as the only viable Ortho­ ethos. Indeed, imitating the old "Protestant" principle of the objec­
dox paradIgm for the better part of the 20th century, with all the tive authority of the text, we often Simply replace the authority of
consequences that this monopoly would have. sola scriptura with the authority of the consensus patrum, Ultimately,
in practice, the authority and the study of the patristic texts-the
vast majority of which are essentially interpretive commentaries on
18 Stockl, op cit, 103-4, the Bible-has acquired greater importance and gravitas than the
19 Schmemann, "Russian Theology : 1920-1 972, An Imroductory Survey," op cie, 178, biblical text itself Thus, Orthodox theology overlooked the biblical

'i

I
16 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY "Return to the Fathers" and lvfodern Orthodox Theology 17
foundations of the Christian faith, the indissoluble bond between gories such as nature, essence, homoousion, hypostasis, person, logos,
the Bible and the eucharist, the Bible and the liturgy. And while we intellect, nous, meaning, cause, power, accident, energy, kath' holou,
based our claims to be Orthodox on the Fathers, we ignored the fact cosmos, etcY But this ahistorical approach to patristic theology is
that all the great Fathers were major interprerers of the Scriptures. It in fact a "betrayal" of the spirit of the Fathers inasmuch as it betrays
was forgotten that patristic theology is simultaneously unconfused and ignores the very core and essence of their thought, i.e., a contin­
and indivisible biblical theology, and Orthodox tradition, as well uous dialogue with the world, and an encounter with and assump­
as Orthodox theology, are patristic and biblical at the same time; tion of the historical, social, cultural, and scientific context of their
they are patristic and Orthodox only to the extent that they are alsQ time, as is particularly well illustrated by th e great fourth-century
biblicapo '.
Fathers' engagement with Hellenism. Today, in contrast to the
2. Patristic theology was mythologized, removed from its ~isrori- . b~ldness and breadth of the Fathers'}th ewi,ciespread propaga£ion,
c¥. context and ipp~9.ached ahisrorically, almost metaphysically.. popularization, and "necessity" of thuaH to '~return to the Fat:hers"
The ~articular histori~a.lcircumstancesin whichthe PiltriSJic. y~:~~ks . ,j ' ns>t:" only made the Fathers ani~ltegral Pil.f§ tof ~r;..;Orthodox :~fad"
" w.~r.~;,,,vrj ttyn, the Fath~rs' continuous interaction and dialo.gu c.}Yith . . '. and of the dominant Orthodox "establishmem;'but.hasalso tome
-'t~e ' philosophy and outside philosophical trends oftheiiera£:their to characterize and accompany everykioi~¥~ed~cbnseryativ:~ and
.st·Li d).- ~nd free us.e ofrhe hermeneutical methods of their time~ fundamentalist version of Orthodox .t,he.ohgy. And the constant
~I} this was forgotten. A~d we have nOt yetadegu~fely cPr:-sj~e.r:ed . . invocation of the authority o('tpq.., F.<:lthCJ.'?Jor _every: son of prob­
'r~;ha,t appears robe the most characteristicexample~of~h.t'. g:hur,~h
"

.' ~ ~ "';..:tt.:- .lem-:-'c-even those issues that:couId:notJt,wc-:exisced in thepa!irj ~ tic


~takli1gup de~ents ini~'j~lJy foreign to its own thed9gjcal;and,onto~ . agt~led tOxhe 0 bjectificati,0l1ofpatfistic.theology and toa pcq,~liar .
lOgical assumptions_ a~.~.f.r.u~tfully assiIT\il~ting.Gh~rn into i rsJifeand:
"

r.... . '~p~ristic fundamentalisUl'f. riot:imlike thebiplical fundamel}:t ~~~rn '


.: ".,';; ,":.1. • ;~ theology. Today;, \ve 0<j.ve , s~me "to r~gaJd,.that . encounter assdf­ ~Jf:'excremistFrot~st-ant groups.' Finally, thisahistoric:al appr93:~; r.o ~,,~
,\:) . 1-: .!l ;'.• ; . evident, forgetting the ·l jt~qicb.jl,tdes (h(ltpreceded it. Perhaps we pa~risticthought1c:d: tothe suppression of the contributiOnof\\~ s t;~· < -,
are unaware or fail to. notice .ho~vdifficult and painful it was for ern theologyinthe movement to rediscover the theology of the .
primitive Christianity (~ith its Jewis~and generally Semitic roots GreekFathers .andtoliberate theology from scholasticism. In.fact, '.
and origins) to accept and incorporate HeUenic concepts and cate­ as is well known, starting as early as the first half of the 20th century,
20 Fo r similar remarks and bibliographical references, i; f. P. Kalaitzidis, "Rudolf Bult. western theology in all its forms has been traveling its own path of
mann 's History and Eschatology- The Th eory of Demythologization and Interior­ repentance and self-critique, making its own attempt to be liberated
ized Existential Eschatology. Purring Bulrmann in Conversation with Contempo­
from the confines of neo-scholastic and rationalistic theology; its
rary Greek Theology:' imroduction to the Greek edition of the Rudolf Bulrmann's
classic wo rk , History and Eschatology. The Presence of Eternity (Athens: Indiktos most eminent representatives have been searching for the tradition
Publications, 2008), lix [in Greek). Florovsky's approach seems to lean in another of the undivided Church, and seeking dialogue and contact with
direcrion: ""The witness o f the fathers belongs integrally and intrinSically, to rhe very the modern world. The rediscovery of the eschatological identity of
Structure of rhe orthodox faith. The Church is equally commirred ro rhe kerygma
of the Apostles and ro rhe dogmara of th e Fathers. Both belong together insepara.
the Church, primarily in the realm of German Protestantism, and
bly. Ihe Church is indeed 'Apostolic: Bur th e Chutch is also 'Patristic: And only the renewal movements within Roman Catholic theology, such as
by being ' Patrisric' is the Church continuously 'Aposrolic: The Fathers testify ro the the movement to return to the Fathers (the most representative
Aposroli ciry of rhe Tradition:' G. Florovsky "Patristic Theology and rhe Ethos of the
Orthodox Church" in Collected Works ofGeorges Floi'ovsky, vol. 4: Aspects ofChunh 21 For a more detailed analysis of this idea, cf P. Kalaitzidis, O;·thodoxJ and lYJodernit)'-'
Histor)', op cit, l6.
An lnt;'oduction, (Ath ens: Indikros Publications, 2007), 69 If [in Greek].

-~-
.!

18 ST VLADJj\llR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY "Return to the Fathers" and Modern Orthodox-Theology 19

examples of which are Fourviere's school in Lyons and the publi­ influence" had become one ofits priorities. These theological trends,
cation of the patristic works series "Sources Chretiennes" by its with the exception perhaps of ecumenical theology, the theology of
preeminent collaborators 22 ), the liturgical renewal movement,23 the mission, and the movement for patristic and liturgical renewal, do
reconnection of the Bible wi th the liturgy,24 as well as the Church's not appear to have been influenced by Orthodoxy, despite the fact
and theology's social commitment, are only some of the aspects of that important Orthodox theologians actively participated in the
western theology's attempt at liberation and self-critique, which ecumenical movement from its inception. 27 Orthodox theology's
were connected with the so-called "nouvelle theologie"2S move­ silence and absence from the contemporary theological discussions
ment, without which the Orthodox movement for the "returp to does not seem to have gone unnoticed by modern western theolo­
the Fathers" would probably have beenimpossible. 26 gians, who have not failed to point out Orthodoxy's inability to be
3. Concerned as it was with the very serious matter offreeing itself expressed in contemporary terms and its continued invocation of
,. from western influence and "returning toxheFathers" -c:-deaUng, the authority of the Fathers andoftradition.28
. inoxher words, with issl,les of sdf-undersqnding and~ iden~ity~ . 4. Judging. from.. the,results, it cau- hardly be den ied that the
., . Orthodox theology, with a fewexceptio.ns, ,\\'as ,basically ,absent "return to the Fathyrs~ . , has:':contributed, de cisively-and nega­
'. : ~ ': , . ... . from the major theological discussions Qrthe;20rhcentury and had tively-tO the polarizatt0h 'bei:\veen Eas[ and West, to Orthodoxy's
, . almost no influence in setting the lheologicaLagenda: Dialectical total rej ection of the West, and to the cultivation and consolidation
theology, existential and hermeneutical.rh~ology; the theology of of an anti-western anGi ariti ~e cumeni cal spirit. In referring to anti­
i i. _~ : ~ .. histOry and culture, the theologypfse(ularizationanci mqckrnity" w~s~ernis.m;;wedondt .a t allmeari the perfet;;tly legitimate criticisms · ' -. '"
the,,"nouvelle theologieI: comextual .lheologies, the rheol()gy of of. the West and its .deviations from the .tradition
. ' , . of the undivide d. . • ':'
~

, , . hO:f>~' <J.nd political t.heology; liberation the ology, black the Ci.l9g-y, ChlJ,rqh, nor the pra<;ticeof poiming our r~e differences in a c-alm ,. ­
.fenli-nist theology, .ecumenical theology, the .theology .of missiDn., .oandcolkcted. way, nor the illustration of the;West's problems· and
thetheology ofreligions.and otherness-this whole revolutiOrlJJ:rat . . "! ~ . ~ impasses. We refer, rather,to that simplified; '~traw ~ man:" to ' that .
ocCli r red in the theological work of the 20th century barely touched · ' onecsided, inaccurate, and vimperativecriticism, which sees iIi the
Orthodox theolog y. Rather, during this period, Orthodox theology West only errors, heresies, betrayals, and alrerationsto Christianity
was concerned with its own "internal" problems; escaping "western (while at th e same time praising the East for its fidelity to tradi ­
22 For the histo'ry of thi s ed itorial attempt, cf EL Fouilloux, La collection «Sources
tion) , and which, going beyond the historical facts, restages re al­
Chritiennes» , Editer Ie's Peres de IEglise au XXe sieele (Paris: Cetf, 1995) . . ity by continuing to read the relationship between East and West
23 On this point, cf, Dom Olivier Rousseau , Histoire du rnouvement litlt1-gique (Paris, as a relationship of COnstant confrontation, conflict, and division,
1945) ; B, E, Koenker, The Liturgical Renaissance in th e Roman Catholic Chtmh
thus erasing ten centuries of common Christian life and ecclesias ti­
(Chicago, 19 54) ; H, J Staw!ey, The Liturgical Movement (Oxford, 1954), Cf. the •
sp ecial issue of the journal La Maison Dieu 25 (195 I) with the tide: "Avenir et ris­ cal communion, and forgetting that the catholicity of the Church
ques du '~enouveau liturgique." entails both East and West.
24 Cf especially the classic work of]. Danielou, Bible etliltt1gie, La theologie biblique des
saaements et des fltes d'apres les peres de tEglise, 2nd ed, (Paris: Cerf, 1958).
25 For an informative update on aJl these trends, cf. R. G ibellini, La teologia del XX
seeola, 4th ed, (Brescia: Editrice ~eriniana, 1999). 27 It is noteworthy that not even one O rth odox theologian is mentioned in the volumi­
26 For an exhaust ive analysis of the questions raised above, cf. P. Kalaitzidis , Hellenicity nous classic wo rk of R. Gibellini, La teologia del XX seeola, op cit.
and Anti-westernism in the Greek Theological Generation ofthe 60's, op cit, especially 28 H , Kung, Theology for the Third Millennium. An Ecumenical View, tr. Peter H einegg
40-58 [in Greek]. (New York: Doubleday, 1988),57-59.

II
. -'" ­
20 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY "Return to the Fathers" and Modern Orthodox Theology 21

Here we run into a major paradox, which is worth sEOppirig EO and illogical inv ective against the West. Thus Orthodoxy was seen
analyze. Fr Georges Florovsky, who was the main proponent of the as having the wealth and authenticity of the Fathers' thought, a
"return EO the Fathers," and the most important theologian both rich liturgical experience, and mystical theology, while the spiritu­
.v ithin this movement and within Orthodoxy as a whole during the ally emaciated \'V'est lacked all these things and instead was content
20th century, was reared not only on patristic literature, hymnol­ with scholasticism and pietism, theological rationalism, and legal­
ogy, and even the Bible, but also by the great works of contempo­ ism. As a result, younger Orthodox theologians, particularly in
rary western theology, which he tOok into consideration or with traditionally Orthodox countries, learned not only the interpre­
which he was in cons tant dialogue (A. von Harnack, K. Barth, E. tive schema of an orthodox East versus a heretical West,butit
Brunner, Y. Congar, H. de Lubac,.L. Bouyer, E. L. Mascal, R. Bult­ also became commonplace to contrast, in a self-satisfied way, the
mann, A. Nygren, J. A. Moehler, E. Mersch, P. Batiffol, G. L. Pres­ better version whichis Orthodoxy (with the Cappadocian Father~,
tige, G. Kittel, E. Gilsou, J. LebreEOn,P. Tillich, et al). Moreover, M::t'xiiiius theCorifessor, so-called "mystical" theology, StGrego-ry
Florovsky never adopx.eq. the i dea 9f a polarization between East " Pahun as; the Russian ·theology of the Diasp6ra, etc.}witht)hdnfe;· ;1\

and West; he utilize,d t~1~ Latin ,Father5, such as Augustine, in his ;" dd.~· ' 'l{ersi <:)J1 represented by the West ("vithits scholastic tneologr,
.-:
ecdesiological works , he lwrote many of his classic studies for an Thdn'laS Aquinas, the Holy Inquisition, a theolog y of lega'li'sn'l ~i}d
ecumenical audience,or as an Orth.Odox contribution to ecumepi­ pietism: etc.) . This is how the modern ~lest remains understdbd' . '
cal ni.eetings; ~U)d,. aboy~ all, he was ~lways. quick to maintainth at - ,I: ' today in many Orthodox countries. Despite the significaric -,p rog-:
the catholicity of theJ;:~~up;hcould notonly ilOtexist with .Only the " .t;i"_,n 'i ds~t hat has takenpla& in the fields of pitristic stu(:Hes;~ the' thec;-l­ '.,
. \X1est; bUta)sQ thac .it_coy,ld. not exist with only the East, and that .- .;, .~ I, 'ogy ofche local· chmch , 'and eLlcharistic, ccclesiology, the XX/est is
- 'Z..;-.. . catholicity requires both .lungs of thc ,Cl::l¥~h , wes.t ern and .eas~ . •~ ; ;: , still seen through this ~tSt6rte d lens fo r f(!a:son~Fof co iivenience arid

: ,,;, ;.;.0,:.' ... ~ t' '.. YJ.:p.,·likeS iamese t""ins. 29 However, as we alreadYi n o tf cl. ab~lf'{~...· the simplicity or, moresirrip1t fi6t'i1:igl10rm1eeQhis climate -has abet­

. 1,: -'~ _ ~: .. ~-t.: ''':i . . ,; m ovement for a "return tQ the Fathers" was sig~ifisat:tt~y .irtB:tie~c;ed
ted in depriving the ne;.ver~Brth'o ~ox' tHeo16gical generation of the ,
. )/;f.~ '.b}Z the participation and the work of other theQIQgi.a ns . (L9ssky, ' right and the possibility otbeco'r'ning fa:I'Tiiliar and iriceracting with
Staniloae, Popovic, et al ), wh ile the positions and the general theo­ the fundamental works ~fwestern theology, which remain, for the
.logical line of thought which ultimately prevailed was, in ·many most part, untranslated or un known in the Orthodox world. We
places, at odds with Florovsky's positions, such as, most notably, an have thus forgotten how much Russian Diaspora theology, as well
intense anti-western ism and anti-ecumenism. 111e Fathers .and their as the "return co the Fathers" moveme'nt itself, owes to the West; 30
theology were often seen as the unique characteristic and exclusive the Orthodox theology of the second half of the 20th century has
property of the East-thus blatantly ignoring the Christian West's lost, in other words, its sense of his cory and interaction. 31
important contributions in rediscovering the Fathers-while more
than a few....times patristic theology was used to wage an outdated
30 Th e neo -pauiscic school's asce m ove r che rheol ogy of che Russian school arrer che
29 Cf. G . F1oro vsky, "Th e Legacy and che Task of Onhodox Theology," AngLican Theo­ 193 0s and 1940s, was aided by, among ochers, wesrem convens [Q Onhodoxy who
LogicaL Review, 31 (1 949): 65- 7 1; idem , "So me Com ribucofs co 20rh cencury Ecu­ shared ics passio n fo r che liturgi cal , ascerica l and mysric al u adicions of che Farhers; cf.
menical Thoughr," EWiilc;',ism II A HistoricaL Approach, vol. 14 o f CoLLected Hlorks P. Valli ere, Modern Russian TheoLogy. Bukharev, SoLoviev, BuLgakov. Orthodox TheoL­
ofG. FfoTOvsky (Belmont, M A : Nordland, 1989),209-10; G. Flo[Qvs ky, "Ways of ogy in a New Key, op cir, 5, 6.
Russian Theology:' in A spects ofChurch History, vol. 4 o f CoLLected Wo ;-ks of Georges 31 C f. P. Kalairzidis, HeLLei1icity and Anti-weste;'nism in the Greek Th eoLogicaL Genera ­
Ffo rovsky (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 989), 202-4. tion ofthe 60's, op cic, especially 54, 48 [in Gree k].
['
. I
I'
II
22 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY "Return to the Fathers" and iv[odern Orthodox Theology 23

The case of the other great theologian of the neo-patristic both fruitful and problematic, that have allowed for the inter­
movement and of the "return to the Fathers:' the more conserva­ pretation that there is something new under-way in Orthodox
tive and "traditional" Vladimir Lossky, is even more complicated . thought, and for the dismissive opinion that it is all a well­
\vith regard ro the issue of anti-westernism. The work of this great rehearsed repetition of Orthodox exceptionalism and Slavo­
Orthodox theologian of the Russian Diaspora, and particularly his phile thoughr. 34
classic work The Niystical Theology ofthe Eastern Church 32 (which, What is beyond doubt, however, is the fact that both the Russian
apart from the impact it had in the West and on western theolo­ theology of the Diaspora and other theological movements for

gians, was particularly influential among younger Orthodox theo­ . renewal in other Orthodox countries flourished and developed in an

logianson the issue of mysticism, and inspired a renewed interest in environment of dialogue with theWest, and not in an environment

.the Areopagite corpus and Palamism, especially among the Greeks of zealotry and Orthodox introversion. And so, as strange or even

a nd other Eastern Orthodox), was in constant dialogue with'th-e . scandalous as it may seem to some, it was 'the;meeting and-dialogue

wester rl Cr,risrian tradition; and, in fact, "";;;'sinspired, in apositfve - -" , . ". with-. the West that led to the renaissanc.~ ,of Or~hodox theology

. ;lnci{ruitful w;:ty; ,bythe movement for a patristic revival wnit:h \{ras ~~;-.~. in'the 20th century and to its relcasefrom ;ii;s ~'Babyloni~ncaptiv~

"

takirig. plad: anhattime within the Rornan CatholicChl.lrcK7-a~ .. . . :. ,


ity'? to western scholastic and pietistic :t'heokigy. The opportunities
MeyendorfF notes: " and fruitful challenges :posed to the Onhodox by the ecumenical
: This book was a response to an urgent need: French' C~th6Ii: " '-'!;: .: dialogue ultimately ledOrth<>40x theolpgy our of its parochial
..',':' ':'" , cism was undergoing a period of patristic and litLi~'gi'cal'":redlS} '>-' .~\ ihrroversion and its insular s@lks'ufficien6yi,::ahd contributed deci- .
" . : , .-, . . :.~ • . cOYery, which spread [0 other European countries; p aFticulady-:~ si'vdy: to the emergence of the gr~at forms of the theoiogy .of Fhe
i. . Germany, after. the \y~u. LO,5sky was the O i':!=hoa ox voice [heat . Di1isp"ora; and to the dfig~t;ta:l~sytlth esesofGieek-speakirig thealqgy" "
~: ~, .sought a meeting w;idl this,mQveme.u.t;·" Fres~ming the chal­ sucIi -asrhe theology.!(if, d~epers6n.3S Orthodox fundamentalisrrr :....,.
lenging riches of East,em Qrtho.qoxyto)th't; ,\'(/est. 33 . whit!i ' very .ohenthtiv"tS in monastic Or pro-monastic ' enviro'n- - " .i -~

But as Kristina Stockl notes' itlhel:<')tudYl .'.... ments,; and which· coI1siders ariti~westernismand anti-ecumenism 1· •

Lossky, despite his rejection obhe philosophical and theo­ as conStitutive elements of the Orthodox self-consciousness' and as

logical language that dethminedmuth ofehe Slavophile and the most defining characteristics of patristic theology-obscures

Eurasian anragonizingagainsnhe West, was himselffrequenrly and obstinately refuses to accept these truths.

accentuating the difference between the East and the West on 5. In spite of the theological interests of Florovsky and other '

doctrinal grounds. Lossky seems to have been careful not to Orthodox theologians who followed him (e.g" the Incarnation, the
derive political or cultural claims from this distinction, but historicity of theology and the openness of history, the contextual­
some of his disciples, for example Christos Yannaras, did in ization of the word of Gospel, the catholicity of the Church, which
fact faH· into bold Statements of cultural and political nature.

Lossky's work contains all elements that have made the recep­

34 Krisrina Sroekl, Comm unit), after Totalitarianism, op eir, 101. Cf. P. Kaiai ezid is, Hel­
tion of contemporary Orthodoxy in the East and in the West lenicity and Anti-westernism in the Greek 1heological Genem tion ofthe 60's, op eic, 51,
530-35 [in Greek].
32 v. Lossky, Essai sur la1heologie lvlystique de L'Eglise d'Orient (Paris: Aubier, 1944). 35 cr, J. D. Zizioulas, "Onodossia;' in Encidopedia del Novecento, Insriww dell' En­
English cranslarion: 1he lvfystical 1heology of the Eastern Ch urch (London: James ciclopedi a Iraliana, vo!' V, (Rom a, 1981),6. Cf. also, P. Kalairzidis, H ellenicity and
Clark, 1957).
Anti-westernism in the Greek Theological Generation of the 60s, op cie, espeCially 47
33 J. MeyendorfT, "Lossky.le militant;' Contacts, no. 106 (1979): 208-9.
. ;
[in Greek] .
I
. ..
'1'' I
-

I' ,

24 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY "Return to the Fathers" and Modern Orthodox Theolog), 25

includes both East and West, etc.), and their lasting concern for a aim of renewal? Has it not thus hindered both the word of God

creative and rejuvenating engagement with the spirit of the fathers, in its incarnation and revelation within each particular social and

i.e., for a neo-patristic synthesis and renaissance, we must admit that cultural context, and the development, within Orthodox theology,

the "return to the Fathers" and "Christian Hellenism:' as a proposal of hermeneutics, biblical and historical research, systematic theol­
for a theological agenda, is basically a conservative choice, inasmuch ogy, anthropological and feminist studies, and political, liberation,

as they ultimately refer more to theology's past than to the present and ecumenical theology? Has it not contributed in its own way to

and th e future. And while this theological movement's intention is making the entire Orthodox ecclesiallife a prisoner to pre-modern

to push Orthodoxy out of its inertia and into a dialogLie with the structures and practices and to a conservative mentality?

.contemporary world on the basis of the neocpatristic syn the sis, the In any case, modernity and post-modernity (or late modernity)
movement itself is essentially absent from the theoLogical agen da and the framework they provide constitute the broader histori­

r r""
,that establishes the broader historical context'ofthis·dialogtie;,vii.
I!"nodernity and late mod erni ty. We should," ;,o fcol1t;sel'rernemhef
cal, social, and cultural efntiromrtent within which the Orthodox
Church is called to Hve ,af?,tl'carry- durHrsniissi6h';it is here that the
"; '';,;1. , 'h·.. ~ • that, for primarily historical, reasons, thc:Or:tho:doiM~orld Bid not Church is called updn 'ri(nci arid'tlitkagain to incarnate the Chtis­
1,1 , ~ :1.~ i., .", r "" organically participate in the phenom enoa;-bf ·:rnodetnicy. Iedid tian truth about Gba; thb1W:()ffd and humanity. Certainly, modern
., F:~:;" not experience the Renaissance, the Reformation; or the Counter C Orthodox theology,"'iris'p lredmaihly by the spirit of the Fathers,
,' 8eformation, religious wars or rhe, Erd ight.tlljJl em, the French "or reformulated duringthc)Othcentury ,an admirable theology of the .,' /'''::
~, =:': .the Inpustrial revolution ,. the rise ofthe subj·ect; humanrighrs, or· Incarriiltion, of "assum'ing;''fl'esh.'' Howeverr,its position on a serie's' , :~'i.;.; .
there~igiously neutral nation-state. \Vhar h,is been recognized as­ of issues revOlving, essential,ly, aroLind asp'eets of the modernist · :~<~'''~;'~,''
thS cQ".:~ ofmodernityseefn~[0 ha\:e remained alien to Orth odox~' >" ," ,J. • " phenomei10n, but also ·the core of itseccles'i:IiHeWunderstandi&g" "~,,,:;T .,. ,i
which,cQl)tin1..leuQ b~. ·sl!lspiCious of modernity. This uncertaimF 1,;:-v ,. .:.!; hlts~ofteh left this otherwise remarkable th~16gf'Cif- Ihcardatibn"~:
helps explain' Qrthod:0~;:Y:s difficulty in communicating with·, the ',, · ~;,., •.•-g-i ," in 'ib-eyance and socially inert. Such issues 'int hide htflU'an'Ylgl1tsi
, contemporary. (pOSt-) '111odern world, and it raises at the same time "'" ';~~.' Irhe';secularization of politics andinstitutlO'i'fs, the- d e.Yactaiizati'on
the.questionofwhetheior not Orthodox Christianity and (neo) . I .! ofpolitics and ethnicity, the overturning ofestablished social hid­
patris tic theology came to, an end before moderni ty. archi es in the name of a fairer society, theaffirrnatio n,of love and
Indeed, if we consider the precedent of the Roman Catholic corporeality and the spiritual function of sexuality, the position of
Church, we will see that scholastic philosophy and th eology-when women, social and cultural anachronisms, and so forth. The typi­
it was reinstated in the second half of the nineteenth century with cal Orthodox approach to such issues, sadly, confirms yet again th e
Neo-Thomism at the forefront-was meant to be, among other view th at Orthodox p eople content themselves with theory, and
things, a defense against the challenges th at modernity posed to the make no progress or fall tragically short when it comes to practice;
inflexible theological es tablishment of the Roman Catholic Church that we prefer to "contemplate" and "obser ve" rather than to act,
at that time ; therefore, mutatis mutandis, the crucial question in the forgetting or Side-stepping the fundamentally anti nomic and anti­
present context is the following: has not the celebrated "return to conventional character of the ecclesial event and settling down in
the Fathers;' as it has been understood an d app lied by several Ortho­ the safe confines of "tradition" and cUStOms handed down from
dox theologians, served also as a bulwark against modernit y and the the past, and the comfort of the traditional society 'which, in the
challenges it posed, in spite of itself and contrary to its declared minds of many, is by its very nature identical to "Tradition" itself.
il'il;
" :11
liil
''". _.
. -~ . -.

26 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL OUARTERLY "Return to the Fathers" and lvlodern Orthodox Theology 27
---
Yet theology at least ought to be incarnate, to remind us constantly of understanding the theological project and a methodological
of the antinomic and idoloclastic character of the ecclesial event, framework for "doing theology." It is evident that the above analysis
but also to commit itself to the consequences and repercussions of presupposes an approach, at once constructive and critical, of
the theology of the Incarnation. 36 contextual theology. While it can sometimes go too far, contextual
theology highlights the close link between the text and its context,
The Needfin- a New Incarnation ofthe Word and the Challenges and reminds us that we cannot do theology in a purely intellectual
ofContextual Theologies or academic way, abstracted from time, history, and the scicio-
If every text always has a "con-text:' and if we agree that the specific cultural context, from pastoral needs and from the myriad different
and determinant context of patristic . theology was the then- forms Cifhuman culture and theological expression. 3s
dominant Greek philosophy and cultur~,_ then we must seriously Therefore, theology, as the prophetic voice and expression of
and honestly consider '""hether weare facing today the same context, the 'Ohurch's self-understanding, must function in reference to the
e:_ __ J and if we are living and creating in the ·fram:ewOfk of the same type - anl'inomic arid dual'::natllred character of the Church:' Just' 'as .th~ '
•.• J of culture, or if we ar~ fadng ,thechallengcs 'of a post-hellenic and" Ghur.~h ·ls not of this world, so theology aims at expressing-a ch}tris'~l- ",,'}""
~ ~1"~ :~ consequently post-patristiceraY -And jf we do, the next crucial mati:c" ~xperience and"a transcendent reality, over and abdve'\v-bra~i'~' c' ._.!.. ,,..
:.~ question is whether tholmy and the task of theology is to defend concepts, or names, JUS( as the Church lives and goes forth -lim:), ' ­
:;, or to preserve a certain era., a.-certain culture, a certain language, or, ~;. ;i; _~ .. th't~w6.rld, so theology seeks dialogue and communicatib'ii'~ith'
on the contrary, to serv'tY rhe truthofthe' Gospe.l and the people . 'Y""~ ·n. · · th~ historical preserit<in 'cvery age, adopting the larrguige:' the ffiti-sh;'-.
o£God in evef'? time;; in-every space, and through every culture or 't, -.;~:l, and, thethought-wOddi o£~each particular era,"of th6 historicahnd",,·
laNguage. Because there is no such thing as 'd'ooiversal theology~hl';;'I. ~ ;: t.. . cultural present at iriy'.gi:'~(n,time. The6logr-lsn6:t.to extensive with ,
I~'.' al1sttact, a kind of ahistorical, unaltered,; andriiridesnraditioila11d:.'~ ,', histOry and cannot b:e ;itientified,·with hrstbtY;J·hmt neither can it
.. f 4
, , ::.:' ~.
C'.: _. monolithic conception; theology occurs onlym 'specifi(!'.historical <'- function in the absence bfhikto ry ;tnd/mor~importantly, it cannot
and rcultural contexts and in response to specific questions ) and , -,;-.'.,' . ,-~o·, ",. (.. ;<\
challenges. Accordingly, contextual theology refetstoboth a -way 38 For a conmuctive and crirical contexr~ahheology approach by Onhodox rheolo·

gians, cf N. Nissioris, "Ecclesial Theology in Com e.xc:' in Song Choan-Seng (ed.),

36 Cf P. Kalairzid is. Orthodoxy ant! Modernity: An Introduction, op clr. 100-,-10 I , 104- _ D oing Theology Today (Madras: ChrisrianLirerarure Sociery, 1976), 101-24; E.

5 [in Greek]. Ir is worrh noring rhar rh e quesrions rai sed above wirh regard ro the Clapsis, "Th e Challenge ofConrexrual Theologies:' -in Orthodoxy in Convenation.

I . Orthodox Church and modernity were discusse d, considered. and researched as parr Orthodox Ecumenical Engagements (Geneva/ Br60kline; MA: WCC Publicarions/
of rhe program ar rhe Volos Academy for Theological Srudies of rhe Holy Meuopo­ H oly Cross Orrhodox Press, 2000), 165-72; Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev. "The Patrisric
lis of Demeuias (Volos, Greece) in rh e 2001-2002 academic year. The conference H er irage and Moderniry." in Orthodox Witness Today (Geneva: WCC Publicarions,
rexes and presemarions were compiled and published by Indikros Publicarions, Arh­ 2006). especially 152-65; P. Vassiliadis, "Onhodoxy and Conte xrual Theology;' in
ens, in 20Q] [in Greek]. In addirion , rhe Sr John of Damascus Insrirure of Theology L ex Orandi, Studies in Liturgical Theology, Isr ed. (Th essaloniki , 1994), 139-56 [in
ar rhe Universiry of Balamand in Leb anon organized an imernarional symposium Greek] . Some inreresring presenrarions on rh e ropic were given ar rhe inrernarional
on "Thinking Moderniry: To,,'-ards a Reconfigurarion of rhe Relarionship berween sympos ium held in 1992 in Thessaloniki, Greece, by rhe Universiry of Thessaloniki
Orrhodox Theology and Modern Culrure" on 3-5 December 2007. in conjuncrion School of Theology. in conjuncrion wirh rhe Ecum en ical ln srirure ar Bossey, on rhe
wirh rhe Chair of Orrhodox Theology ar rh e Cenrre for Religious Srudies of rhe Uni­ role of Orrhodox rheology in rhe ecumenical movemem an d dialogue berween "clas­
versiry ofMunsrer in Germany. The vo lum e of rhe proceedings from rhis Symposium sical" and "conrexrual" rheologies. The rexrs of rhe spee ches from rhe conference
is under publicarion. were published in rhe Greek rheological review Kath' Odon, no. 4 (January-April
37 I make use in rhe presem paragraph of eleme nrs of rhe analysis raken from my book 1993) [in Greek]. and a French-language reporr appeared in edirion no. 173 (De­
Orthodoxy and lvlodernity An Introduction, op ci r, 105-7, 109 [in Greek] . cemb er 1992) of rhe Service Orthodoxe de h esse (SOP) , 7.

.. -.... _.
i ,
, . 28 ST VLADJj\lfIKS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
"Return to the Fathers" and Modern Orthodox Theology ~~ 29

keep ignoring the lessons of history. Without this process of uncon­ continues to be scorned and disparaged by the Church, neglected
fused osmosis and reception of th e world and of history, without as revelatOry material and flesh to be assumed.
this gesture of dialogue, moving towards the world and "witness­ It is imperative, then, for Orthodox theology to examine the
ing" to it, neither the Church nor theology can exist, nor can God's possibility of deviSing, through the Holy Spirit, new terms and new
revelation, since the Church does not exist for itself but for the names ("to coin new names:' in the words ofSt Gregory the Theolo­
world and for the benefit of the world: "for the life of the world,"39 gian), correlated to today's needs and challenges, just as the need for
After all, God's Revelation has always taken place within creation a new incarnation of the Word and the eternal truth of (he Gospel
and history,40 not in some unhistori cal, timeless universe unrelated is also urgently necessary. A theology ofrepetition, a theology that
to the world. As the late theologian Panagiotis Nellas, founder of ' is satisfied simply with a "return to (he sources," or that relies,on
I
the well-known Greek theological journal Synaxis} noted propheti­ the "return to the Fathers" and the neo-patristic synthesis, cannot,
callymore than twenty years ago: .' . by definition, respond to this need ancl th.e. ,-!11anifoldchall~nges of
~he post-modern pluralistic world. What:.;.,i~~. ther,~fore. l;eq4~Jed is
, '-... it is not possib1etoday to have a true Revelation of G051 :, t.; , ·;--Ci-:: ' HOt a repetition andaperpetuation of~th.e:~~niaf~od the ret,icence,
" \ vi thoUL elnployingas the material for that revelation today's' ';r l , 1_
, ,-> .
• _ . , .

. 'socia1.ndtural, seier,tifie, and other realities. It is impossible '< ' ~"\~'


....,1._
'Qften adopted by the Orthodox in th~tLS,t'''.nSe towards modernity
for God to motivate, to move man unless He comes into .:'. ­ and pluralism, but a creative encounte~ and' ; s,erious theological
,- . comact with Ollr pai·ticular, historical fle sh; it is nO~ PR~$ ible:;~ '.; dialogue with whatever cha1l517s.ss. m9.qf~~. ity ;md pOSt-1(1?~qnity
~;'-.: .' forHimtosavem~u),ul11essHetransfigures , ourlifc;~!:·~'.r " , ;:~!:; ~: pose, a "re-orientationJof m9.d~r.g.ity]J~~mj nside:' to u?e tpe fin~
sx;pression ofHis)3ea~itq~e P~Fja(~ch Ig!l,ati}l,s iV of Antio cD \~2-:w.- ill

,
!" .,
~'I ,I'~'"
I'"
!.

~·r ' . l~-f ~


. . . ,.
'Expanding on this lineoE thought, we might add, '!:~eref()rei:hat .
a Beshless theology \vhlch refuses ' to .cb'fl~er~FW:ith the,vIder
'social and cultural realiti Es of itS time:::Js-;incbhceivable, whether '
t;heDrthodox~~~~.\.h-~~f, f.~i~h,fyl to ~ renewed theanthropiS~\~t;d , .
<ll1 ill ,lth,eIltic: ~ht;:q~9q. lu;\(. Infarn~tion, and, inspired by (~e ,v!s,i-9:11 , ~, . <0
'and~ thq., exp.eri~n~.~ ,9-~}he Resurrectic)D, internalize the tra9ition~... '';'' l'
, - .... ,J­
it is dealing with modefriit}~" poS-t-rr1oq(H~~ity; or late modernity.
A theology that does not take t~)itsdtthe :"flesh" of its time is' the-boldness, and th~,Q:lnd of the Fathers and the grand theological '
equally inconceivable-just as it is inconceivable for the Church SYf?theses that theY\yQrked out, mainly in the East? Will it enter
., into dialogue ande';enattempt (why not?) a new synthesis with
to be insular, refusing to be drawn out of itself to meet the world
and history, to evangelize and transform it. Thus, the Church and the best in modernity, actualizing the encounter between East and
its theology cannot move forward in the \\Torld while ignoring or West that we have been hearing about for decades?
devaluing the world that surrounds them, Simply because this world The EschatologicalUnderstanding ofTradition
is not "Christian:' because it is not as they would like it or the
SOrt of world that would suit them. Similarly, the Church and its From an Orthodox point of view, the key to addressing the
theology c;;:mot motivate and move the people of today, the people above topics and to answering all these questions can be found
of mod ernity and late modernity, as long as the modern world in eschatology.43 Eschatology introduces an element of active
42 Igna(ius IV, Pa(ri arch of Amioch and aU (he Eas(, Orthodoxy and the Issues of Our
39 Cf.Jn 6:51.
Time, (ransla(ed from Arabic by S. O'Sullivan (Balamand: Publica(ions of (he Uni·
., 40 See N. Ma(soukas, Dogmatic and Creedal Theology, vo!' II (1hessaloniki: Pournaras
Publica(ions, 1985) .58 [in G(eek].
versi(y ofBa lamand, 2006), 222-24,
43 I make use in (he presem scccion of e1emems of (he analys is (aken from (he books:
41 P. Nellas, "The Ligh( of (he \X/ord: Th eo logical Pe(speccives on Overcomin g (he Cri­
p, Kalain:idis (ed,), Church ancl Eschatology, Volos Academy for The ologica l Smdies
sis in (he Teaching of Religious Educa(i on," Synaxis, issue 14 (1985): 101 [in Greek],

\,- ­
30 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY "Return to the Fathers" and j\1odern Orthodox Theology 31

expectation accompanied by the dimension of the future and the logical understanding ofTradition appears as the counterpart to the
renewing breeze of the Spirit, dimensions so definitive for the life and Pauline definition of faith: "Faith is the assurance of things hoped
theology of the Church and yet so lacking today. For in response to the for, the conviction of things not seen;'4S or as the analogue of the
challenge of globalization, cosmopolitanism and internationalism, eschatological "memory of the future" as this is experienced in the
today the wind of traditionalism and fundamentalism is once again Anaphora Prayer at the Divine Liturgy: "Remembering therefore
blowing violently through the life and theology of the Church. this saving commandment and all that has been brought about for
Whereas fundamentalism is a flight into the past of pre-modernity our sake: the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection on the third day,
and involves turning back the course of history, eschatology is an the ascent into heaveIl,rh.e sitting at the right hand and the glori­
active and demanding expectation of the coming Kingdom of God, . ous Second Coming " ADd this because, according to the scholia on
the ~ew world which we await; as such, · it feeds into a dynamic the Areopagitic writings attributed to 5t Maximus the Confessor
c;:omrhirrnent to the present, an affirmation andopenness.to.the fut~re (though this is acrually ,apassage. that schoJa~ship now ascribes :to
Qf the Kingdom in which the fullness and jdentity of the C h urch. is John;of Scythopolis) ,~heent ire ~j,:ineLiturgyrepresents not some
to be found. In other words, the ChUl:chdoes norderiv:eits s\1bsrance . eternal heavenly archetyp~s . .or ,SQme reality in the realm of ideas, ..
.
' . ~: I princip;Jly from what it i~,but rather fromwh~p.lt wiu byco~ein but the eschatolOgic~t Kir.ig~Qrri. which is to co,me, a reality of t1:le
the future, in the eschatological time which, since the Resurrection · future where the tru.th ofthi~gs and of~y,mbQls is to be found. 46 !
of Ch rist and the coming of the H oly Spirix:at Per1tecost, has :tlready . Therefore, just as it isthel,ast things., that give being to the fifst ,
begun toilluminate and i~8uence the:pesentan<:Lhistory. . things; and .eschatOlQgy · t~a~gives being to protology, similady' it ~ , :;. (

-;;
In. the light ofeschatology, even the TraditjQflof the Church itself is the J(ingdoIIl9f G.<?~~~he fullnes.s of;life"and of truthwhi~ h , ', C t.
. acquir~sanew meaning and a different dimension; anoptin1 iSti~ -, wilLtome. to co.mpletion .a nd be fully revea:l~ at the Eschatol}~.
. arid h opefu lperspecdve, 41 this perspective, Tradition isnotiden ti.: .· t~. f.~ ~~fi~esandgives nlecining to the Tia?i~iQP. ~f ~~e:Cb~rc&~ ~~'; .,'
fiedwith habits, custoim> r~adi tions,;deas,or in general with histor~ fUtLg~ , is therefore the cause and not the effect orthe..PflstJ ~i $e,.

ical iDertia and s t~gnarion,~but with a perso n, Jesus Christ, the Lord accQrding to Metropolitan John Zizioulas: · . . . . -. k

of glory who is coming. AsSaint Cyprian of Carthage reminds us; . . The world was created for the eschatologic;al Christ who Wll!

"The Lord said: i am the Truth. He did not say: I am the custom."44 . 'come
. at the Eschaton as the union ofthe created. and the .uncre­
Tradition does not relate chiefly to the past; or to put it difter c .ated. The Church experiences this, according to St Maximus,

endy, it is not bound by the patterns of the past, by events that have in the Holy Eucharist: there, what will be at the Eschaton

already happened. Strange as it may sound, in the authentic eccle­ . happens now in reality, the future becomes th e cause of the

sial perspective, Tradition is orientated toward the future. It comes present. In the Holy Eucharist, we travel backwards in time:

principally and primarily from the future of the Kingdom of God, from the future to the present and the past. 47

from the One who is coming, from what has yet to be fully revealed 45 Heb II :1. Cf. Rom 8:24. Cf. also th e emire comext of H eb 11.
and made manifest, from what God's love and His plan is prepar­ 46 Maximus the Confessor (John of Sc)'thopoli s), Scholia on On the Ecclesiastical Hi·

erarchy, PG 4, 137 CD. On th e attribution of this passage to John of Scythopolis,

ing for us, for the salvation of the world and man. 50 the eschato- see P. Rotem and J. c. Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionpian Corpus:

Annotating the Areopagite (Oxford: Clarendon Press / New York: O xford University

Wimer Program 2000- 01 (Athens: Kastaniotis Publicatio ns, 2003) [in Greek]; Press, 1998) , 174.

P. Kalairzid is, Orthodoxy and Modernity: An Ii1t;'oc!uctioi2, 0P cit, 163 -78 [in Greek). 47 Metropol itan Joh n (Zizioulas) of Pergamon, "The Church and me Eschaton:' in P.

44 Saim Cyprian of Carthage, Senrentiae episcoporum, 87,30. Kalaitzidis (ed.), Church and Eschatology, op ci t, 42 [in Greek).

'"­
32 • ST VLADINlfR'S THEOLO GICAL QUARTERIY - "Return to the Fathers" and i.1odern Orthodox The070gy 33

Or, to recall the apt words of the late Greek theologian Nikos theology, a renewal that is not yet complete. And "Christian

Nissiotis: Hellenism" is a type or paradigm of the Church's relationship to

So the Tradition of Orthodoxy [... ] is not history but witness;


the world and not an "eternal category of Christian existence," or an

it is not the fully accomplished fact of past centuries, but the unalterable and timeless paragon.

summons to fulfill it in the future [... ] Tradition as under­

stOod from this Beginning is the "new;' that which irrupts intO By ~y ofConclusion
the world in order to make all things new once and for all in Of course, the crucial and decisive question that naturally arises
Christ, and then continuously in the Holy Spirit through the from all of the above is if it is possible for there to be an Orthodox
48

Church. , " theology and tradition that is not patristic; if it is possible,)n

In the words of Fr Georges Florovsky himself, the initiator of the otherwords,for us to speak within Orthodoxy of a "post-patristlc

famous"return to the Fatbers"and.qf the "ne()~pitristic synthesis":, theology" (inboth theteniporal and norniativesense of the term).

j. Thus "traditiofl" in thS.Church is nor merely the co ntinuity of ' In t~e words,of Professor Petros Vassiliadis:" i'

· ~ •• • .1 human memorY,or d?f p(.:r,man~nce :of.rites and habits. Vlti - ., tMod<;m .orthodox theology has now reached, in our tinies, ~ .<t ..";.

,.' mately, "tradition" is.rh~~S?{lrinuity ofdivinea:ssistance, the ' :~.acri~icaJ and decisive .crossroads in its historical develop- ' ~~ , .:.,if:: 'Ji
.1
1'­
abiding presence of tl1~ Holy Spirit. The ChlHch is nOt bound
by "the letter."She is ,constantly moved forth by ,"the spirit."
°
~ ment. For the rthodox, the 20th centur y "ias essentially a ~'~ .'

,-" ; ' ipehodofredefining its self-consciousness through a process . .:~ ';.;.. :

The same Spir,it" the Sp1ri~ _?f Truth, w~ic~"sp~e through :. " :~; . ~f.;~; ~, .pE re-discoyering ., [he· power of the ,"patristic" traditi9D.::, t,c 1 :::1 '.!

"
thePi-ophets" -whichg~l,ide~ the Apostles.; vvhich illumined. ~ ' " . :H<l:,vingdiscovered th~ quintessence of its u n iqt1cnc~s il1jts ~;,

th ~. ~vang~list·; , is stillapidipgin the Churc~, ~~15{ guiqes her '~:'_'._ ) '",, ':-;, . . :;liturgical"-i.e., its . e:..c~~~siologicaI, Trinitar~~H' P~~:rit3to- _:~

;r !i;:
•. :~ ;~ i· l , into, the [uila unders~ai1ding of the d.ivine crt.i ~n,fl:OlTlglory , ~: '.. J;:: .'" .\ . .~ogical,iconologicaLcosl1}<2I_ogi~at, ~nd. apoy~!l~ ~sc~wlogi-
to 'g16ry.'~ , ' " ~ .>'.~ - . ~ .- " ~-_:!.~_: ;, to,:"Mx.t
-cal-dimension, i[isnQ\'- 'i:.'l)Le.arot~.lse· step, i.e., ,w

, .Look~(f;t from this angle; then, Tradition is not dl ~ l~tter that kllls:"r;'>. dare to go ~eyond t~~ tradi:io~al "p~tf~stic:~t~e.EI,ogy, prec~seJy
, a-n6s tal';ic repetition or uncritical acceptance or continuatiooofthe; -, as the pamstlc [radmon esseI1nally w_~[ltbeyona :he pnmmve
" ' past, b uta
I:J . ... h HIS"' : .
creatlve contlnulty tn t e o y pmt an an openness 'd ' ' ,',' : . ChrIStian tradmon, and as the . .pnmmve
' _, Chr"lstlan
_ .,' , tradmon
. '

, h" f ' h' ld


to t e uture to t e new wor 0 t e tng om 0
f h K' d f G 'd "h' h '
0 , W lC we
went beyond the Judeo,-Chnstlan o.le. 0, f course, thiS does

d' .. , ' h I f h .
, ' " ,, ' ' not mean aban onll1g the spmt or even testy e 0 t e pams­
, ac.tively aw~it. Seen in t~is light, i.t seems that the patristic tradition tic era, nor does it involve the rejection of the contemporary

With ItS vanous expresslOns a~qUlres ~n~ther meamng and. anoth~r Greek philosophical categories of thought that they adopted ,

perspectlve, lnasmuch as It, tn turn, IS Judged and lnves tlgated ln but rather it means dynamically transcending them. Indeed,

light of the Eschaton and the coming Kingdom of God, while the this is the legacy of the great Fathers of the Church. 50

:r
celebrated eturn to the Fathers~' is a mile-marker in a dynamic Another crucial question that arises is whether or not the neo-

Journey of the broader ren ewal, ln the Holy Sptrlt, of Orthodox patristic synthesis and the movement "back to the Fathers" succeeded.

48 N. Nissiocis, "Occhodo),.")', Tcad icion and Renewal. The Pcoblem of Cultural Rela­
To this question the Russian Archbishop of Volokolamsk Hilarion
d ons becween Orch odoxy and Hellenism in che Future;' in Orthodoxy, Tradition and Alfeyev responds, without h esitation, in the negative, citing, among

1 RenewaL (Achens : Analogio/Efrhyni, 2001),93-94 [in Greek].

1"
49 G. Floroys).,-y, "Parriscic Theology and che Echos of [he Orchodox Church:' op cit, 50 P. Vassiliadis, Interpretation of the Gospels (Thessalon iki: PO.lJID,aX[£R'Ai~aQ~ns,

15-16 1990) ,7 [in Greek]. , , ,..~~'\.Ol\~--:!.J'~

/ ~ ' ).....(. 1

, " ~~ n\(\ 'i £ \0\ ,w I

~,' ( ,.. ' h" ...... , ,,..' I


l ~\ ~')b' , ";''l:. .!
, ,""' ,...... _~/..J\J/
'- ._'....."-- ---,'''\ ).,' /
34 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLO GICArQUARTERLY ''Return to the Fathers" and Modern Orthoaox Theology 35

other things, one objective difficulty that would not permit a positive thought and its relevance to modernity and current issues, as when
outcome from the endeavor that Florovsky championed: he declares: "The works of the fathers never lose their relevance,
In che 20th cenrury the cime for such a synthesis had noc si nce they deal with questions to wh ich the answers are decisive for
yet come. It may yec be achieved if we do noc abandon the the present and future of humanity;"S4 and this happen s because,
way outlined by che theologians of the 20th century. >..] Bur the confession of a "patriscic faith" not only implies the srudy
another qualicative leap for ward is needed in order to build of patriscic writings and the anempc co bring the legacy of the
che neo-patriscic sy nthesis upon chis foundacion,a leap chac fathers co life, but also th e belief chat our era is no less parris­
we, who have entered the 21 st century, can make. It is neces- . ric than any other. The "golden age" inaugurated by Christ,
... saryto find a new approach co the fathers, one which would the apostles and the early fathers endures in the works of the
.. allow us to see che patristic hericage more comprehensively. church fathers of our days.;;
I am deeply convin.ced that fundamental and indispensable If 1=· · 0 h d h I · · f h I · -f: -~'"d· · -·· d ,. : . ' . -d
. O f'· ··h " . h h ldb h 1· . 11 .,. -~"". '. ~ \" ' " .,- tne rt 0 ox t eo ogy 0 t e ast lew ~ca es was msplre
element 0 suc a new approac s ou e c e oglca y COns lS- d " " .. <,
, f· h ".. ~ ' I ' ' h d f .' d' 51 ; ' ~-~, " \ ~)' and-renewe , .by the call to ,r erum rothe .E'!th~ rs; , _ and" ltdlb ~ra-
tenc·use 0 te 'conrextua met 0 0 pamstLC rea mg. "", ' . , . . ., .. . )" . ~ :~" . _ .,. - .
. ~.! to" .' ;~; . . '~.... , . . . ' '. :>;:.' ai~·l~, .'--'
f~"'edIOn from the captlVlty of academICIsm and>'~,tl:t'-q!~:s.t1G,.th(jology-
Bu~:h~ ?r:.~?l~tp" wI;h Alfey~\T s approach IS"that w hlle he IS cn~~. :(.tfii_~ ·.'f;r ·/ \vithout, however, ever managing to avo'id its' ifl~~t.~(1dti'on·V:7iththc

'Of , def~r:slv~ or pr.o tecnve ~rthodoxy, a~2d the s~bsequp:~~ ,; , '. . caricature of traditionalism; p~tristic ar~haed~E!gy, -dnd confessional

. r9ma~~tlc/ahlstoncal view of patristIC theology, and \:Vh~I~ ~e~?·e.t .~ .~ . . entre'nchment-today, in,the glo~,~ li~~-q dW~~.-b·odern plura~i5~

50 ~alia:5 t~, establish an ~nalogy between the Greek f~t~~K~;i)l~t_~,)";,, 3..·. tic.:}Vo,rid" there is a clearandimperati\.;e'r11'<;i;:<;lj 'o i::<a;;l::ireath of fres h ·

anq~nt phIlosophy on t~~ onehand,and modernecclesla!r eo o~YJ , ~ , air for the overcomina of a certain .pwvin<;;iali5rn and complacent '

.:':" .I': ~ I,
,
<

-. " . 1 1<- h h h h as' h


use of oxistentia ist phi osop. ,yon t e ot er ~.P..' : :.~ ri,~::ert e ess
. h I , t _..
- o · ,; . ~ < ." '
imro~Tersionw-ithin Orthocl0~b~16-6~r, f;~':m openness tothe~': t;';tt~, •. ~
. . ..

I- ; ~
seems, in the same text, to h old, ~,
0l! t~' an i~ea:}i
_t -.
. 5cic '"fi 'e\v ~t patristic
~ :"- ::' , .(--<, ' .-" " t "
.'•
~cu~~~i~i~y' ofChristian;, ~~v.t~ili:C.~all~nae
1." - J.,~-,. •. ,
. . -
l 0
·~f. ~~rigiOus othern~s~'-.': '-__~ .. '~t-l . : e:
r: ' -
.:.L::./T.._
_ ' .. ., . "- , .. j " •. ' !' ~'t;;: $',. ' r and the catholidty_: pf huw~I~)hought. Theology's prophetic fUnc :'. ., '.-~"~ :'
' . '. .
)1 BIshop HIlanon Alfeyev, Orthodox tI' ltness ;TodCl)' \Geneva: \'VCC PublIcanons, . '. . .: . . . .. -. , ' :i. J ' " . . f . . .. ,
7_' 006) , 153 . 0 n t h e lise. 0 f··th' e conrextua
C' I . "t' l10 d·,-' C.f ,co
1·me r. '. H 1· tloncalls It tocontmually. nanscend
K· r J'n th·e sanle book , p •
' -" . ItSe! , to contmuall)Ttransform
~-. . .

157: "I believe that soluci ohs may be sollghr.p reci~eiy 'i.n .the consistent use of the and renew every kind ofestiiblished expression and creation-even
principle of the co ntextu al reading of so urces.which presum es the capacit y of theo- those inherited from patristic thought-to make a new leap similar
locrians to examine other traditi ons with the desi re to unders tand rather than to de-
t> , , ", . • or per h aps even areater t h an w h at G ree k patnstlc . . t h ou a h t nee d e d
nounce or humiliate th em, IneVitably the acceptance of a contextual readmg of the . . 0 . . . .. ?

Fathers goes together with th e non -identification otholy Tradition with Hellenism/ to make In relatlon to pnmltlve Chnsnan thought. Is It, p erhaps,

Byzantinism, since the form er includes, bes ides the Byzantine, Latin, Syriac, Russian, cime for us to realize that fidelity to the patristic tradition, the "We,

an d o[hercraditions (154- 5 7 ) , . . _ following the holy Fathers;' does not mean simply the continua­
52 BlshopHdanonAlfeyev,OrthodoxWttnessToda)"opClt,146-4/, . h d h' . f h' d" b
' h op H'l'
53 BIS '''''fness -r:
I anon AlEeyev, 0 l'th 0 d ox vvt 10 day, op Cit,
'1-)8 : "L·ke
I ancI'ent phI·loso-non, .
t e up ate, or even t e reInterpretation 0 t IS tra lnon, . ut .
ph)' in (he time of Clement of Alexandria and ofOrigen, so existentialisr philosophy rather-followIng the precedent set by the leaps made by pnml­
may serve -and for ma ny has already served-as a 'pedagogue' towards Christ. Exis- tive Christianity and the Fathers-the transcendence of patristic
tenti alism can be ecclesialized in the way that ancient philosophy was ec c1eSlalt zed by
the G reek fath ers in the 3 rd and 4th ce nturies. Moreover, the co nceptual language 54 Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, Orthodox Witness Today, op cit, 170. Cf also his statement:
0.
of existentialism, w hich do ubdess is closer to persons today than that of the ancient "The couns els of the fathers. I believe. are far mo re universa l (han the fundamental
philosoph y emplo yed by th e G reek fathers. may be used, if not for the formation of pos tulates of Freudianism and apply to peop le living in the most diverse cu ltu ral and

a 'neo-patristic synthesis: then at leas t for the interpretation of its main ele ments in temporal contexts" (170).

th e language of our contemp o raries," 55 Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, Orthodox Witness Today, op cit, 148.

to
36 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLtJGICAL QUARTERLY

thought when and where it is needed? The "return to the Fathers" SI VI.dimi,·' 1hcologic"IJ2L"'rl(T~r 53A (:,0 10) 37.. 68
was conceived during the 20th century as a "paradigm shift" for
O rthodox theolog y. The question is whether we are now confront­
ing-or if we sho uld confront-a new "paradigm shift" for Ortho­ "HER TH AT Is No B RIDE":
dox theology today. To do justice to this extremely important and ST THECLA AND T H E RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
complex question, howeve r, we will need another paper ; here, I SEX , GENDE R, AND OFFICE
have only been able to lay out some preliminary considerations. 56

Faithful to this spirit, we have not attempted to ignore or bypass David J. Dunn
p atristic thought, but to bring it into dialogue w ith the difficult and .
provocative questions posed by modernity and late modernity. I The purpose of this p aper is to introduce the figure ofSt Thecla into
beli ev~ ,(hatthe Holy Spirit continues to giv~ us its Iruits, aiidoh this': a conve rsation about the ordirration ofwQ'men :10 .rhe priesthood.
- c' basis-I b elieve Orthodox theology today has to at.tefD;Pt tQ~rtic¥Jate . '-.- Her place in this conversation.Js. ~luc.i ~a,teq pest byjuxtaposing her .
'" ~j 'f'{~'''''j : d; .a theological approach to questions that patristic rh o.¥lght-<ditlnDt'-- . to Fr Thomas Hopko's updftte-st'~:9 )1trf[{utio~j:w the revised edition .
I I, ~;' -~ jPl,'.~ :: '··<d[could n ot-have raised. By doing this r hope~o?6penait1e~~way . . . of Women and the Prie5th~~l. ·1Yi:~ P 91fi.t· 0fh is chapter is to argue
fOf modern Orthodox theology, which combil'lCs fidelltytbtradition . that the priesthood is a "rna~CLi1in_e ministry." Although Hopko says
with renewal and innovation, boasting in the).~ordabo ut the posi" . it is a historical axgurn~.nt,·~it s~ems to depen<;i 1,lpon a the ological
<~; - :.~ ti: tive things that Orthodox theorogyli.as-6a'-~r2(rup t6 .this·titne,but . !; claim, namely that jli1,ce j~~Lr{ ·(i :.the Hu;;bair9; of the Bride (the
l i 1< . also including an element ofself-criticism -and op.e nnessto the future. i' . church), then SOmething is,.;..~eeded to make him eschatoIogica:lly
' . Primarily, 110wever,Iadvotate 'a free "Space:fot opeiH11ifideddialogue',i ' -~i~" , ',. prese~t lU1.d<';f the conc:li i:i0l1s of [he.fallen wOrl~. l·:Tha.t something
. where all views can be expl'e~sed hnd considered, with respect for f~{-~" _ is the ~~~ pJ$~sbyler /bishop , who is the "sacrarrient;tl presence an4 .
the diversity of "therother(~ who is an ic on of the Other parexcel~ ' .. -;< i:.t~. " image .of Chnst In the Church."2 The logic of this clai!;: se~IP,s to .; ' J" . •
.1' lence, God. By 'publishing' my views on the issue of the "return to :' ~tL~ ?'e,~preny}t raightforward, Christ is male/rnasculine.- 11:!~ ChurCQ' : ( '
th e Fathers" and on the needfor a Modern Orthodox Theology in the ' t , i ·isfemale / feminine. Therefore, a man is needed to establish alcind " .'
hospitable columns of5-tVladimir's Theological f2!:!:arterly, I don'( ". 6ficonic link between Christ and his Bride. Hopkois quick to add
claim any kind of infallibility, and this is w hy discussion and criticism . that men are not better th an women, which is plain to see from the
are perhaps the most fertile way for me to continue this process. 57 fact that a pries t cannot make the Head present without the equally
necessary presence of the female body.3 N evertheless, he insists,
S6 I will explain myself more on the iss ue of a post-patris tic theology on the occasion
of the forthcoming inte rnational conference on : "Neo-patristic Synthesis or Post­ See Fr Thomas H opko, "Ptesby ter/ Bishop: A Masculine Ministr y:" in vVomen and
pan'istic Theology: Can Orthodox Theo logy be Con tex tual?" which will be held the Priesthood, ed. Tho mas H opko (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1999) , 139 , 154 - 57.
betwee';'j the 3rd and the 6th ofJune 20 lOin Volos (Gre ece). Th.is conference is orga­ This atticle definitely updates h is, admittedly tentative, first attempt to wresde with
nized by the Volos Academy for Theological Studies in collaboration with the Chair this issue theo logica lly back in 1975. In tha t article he mention s Thecla by name. In
of Orthodox Theology at th e Ce ntre of Religious Studies (C RS) of the University of th e 1999 revisio n he on ly mentions women who are equal to th e apos tles, bU( he
Mun ster (Ge rma ny), the Orthodox C hristian Studies Program of Fordham Univer­ probably has her in mind. See "O n the Male Character of C hti stian Priesthood;'
si ty (USA) and th e Romanian Institu te for Inter- O rt hodox, Inter-Confessional and SVTQ 19 (I975): 141, 147-73. See also Hopko's Foreword to Women and the Priest­
Inter- Religious Studies (INTER, Romania). hood,2.
57 I wou ld like to wa tmly thank my co lleague Nikos Asproulis, MA, for his g,-acious 2 Ibid., 154.
II help during the prep aration of th e final versio n of this pape r
3 Ibid., 157-58.
I[
I: 37
h

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi