return fathers

8/8/2019 Return Fathers

1/17

.---Edirorial and Sllbscrip tion Offices

575 Scarsdale Road, C restwood, NY 10707 TeL: +1 9 14,96183 13

EMail : Sv t'l @,yo ts.edu& SVtq-subscrip [email protected]

CONTENTSWeb site: www,svo tS.edu/ SVTQ Copy right 2009 bv St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Semin ary . . FROM n-tE "RETURN TO TH E FATHERS" TO TH E NEED FORA 'Back issues ate . vaib!> leo'n microfilm froIU University Microfilm :MODER}'! ORTHODOX THEOLOGY

YEARLY SUBSCRIPT ION S5000 CANADiAN $50 .00 US Funds _, _p'ameU,s Kalai,zidis . , . _ , . - , , . . . . , ,_ . __. .. ._ 5 .--.'"" _ . -. 0_ . __ " {' ' .". t ... , . . } X ) o . o . . . . . - ~ " , . . : . o : \ ' - " " I , l . . ~ ~ ' . . ...... , ~ : . : ; . . . . . - ! ' : ...::.- '. .+:- , : ; . , r ~ ~ : . . - , : , _ . . . . : . a FOREIG N %9.00 u n d ~ . SINGLE ISSUES $20.00 , _:;_: I , l ! A ; ) ~ . , ,BRIDE": ST THECLA AN D TH E R E L A ~ ~ H t ) i ~ - " ' _ " ' F ~ " " - . , ; " - ' - - ' ~ 'y t f ~ ~- - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ r : - . ; r . ! ' : SEX, GENDER, AN D OFFICE ' . f' i i ( "':;-', .

v ! t ~ ' pC autho rs \\'hoso r t icles appea r in : } , f ; J . : L r d i l ! l i j ~ . J h e o l q ~ i r n c0illi'tcr!y do not necessarily 1 : ~ ~ ; ~ ~ . : D U ~ .-_' , . ,, . .." . ." ." .( I ~ ~ ~ ~ ; r ) ? ) j ~ : : ~: , ! ; ; ~ ~ . , rt:fiecr 0. Cl5c: o f ~ h c .Sc!n ina r"y f ~ c u l r y

1- 'AWITNESS 'TO T H E O S I S E F F E C T E D : M A X I M U S C O N F E ' .. ,>-- ."

::;: '+ ', , ~ ' ; ; .. i ; . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; : ~ : E R ..... .. , .i i f t 0 ~ : ; \ ' : I : ~ r , ' r ; ; i \ Ill is per iodi cal is . j " 1 l \ ( L } ' . : i g t t l l l ' b a t J b a s e a n d included in .ATLA Serials"(,lTLAS' j, an onlil)!, collecti on of major i o n and theology journals. published by the .: :-.';;.,..J . ' - ' ~ ' " \ ' .' " ,J ;./". .'.p j ~ t ~ ; : , ~ . - .. ]... . . ~ . ; . A ? ! e ..ican \ ' A s s o c i a Sui te2 100. c ~ g ? , , l L ~ 9 ( j . O ; i t _ ' . J CH-l1\( ' ; l < i ~ ~ ~ T I O N O BE-Itl,/iiESS'ENCE VS. V ' ~ : ! . " - ~ - , ~ : ; ; ' : ; - ~ i j t ; ~ ' ';M' \ ~ . u i l ! . a r L t G r a t h c o l : p , w ~ b ~ l * l . ! 1 ' t t t p " ' w . a d a . c o m '. - .. " . , ; ~ 1 l : ? ! ~ ~ 4 ,,' o : : ~ ! I ~ r t . : ( : , . t . : : " ' r : : i 1 ~ ~ ~ - '.N o r . m a h ~ u s l l , The Dow-ine ofDeification in the Greek PatristicTmditi(Jn P o r d n i v e r s i c y Press , 2004) . . , , . ," _ : 10 .. Michael M a ~ ; , ed" The Cambridge Companion to the Age ofJustinian(Cambridge: Cambridge Universicy Press, 2005) . . , " _ "" " - . 110Lewis J Patsavos, A Noble Task :Entl] into the Clergy in the First FiveCenturies (Brooklin e, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2007) , . , - 118

CONTRIBUTORS, 121Typeset by Gle n RJ. Ne w Rochelle. NY

Printed by ATHEN S PR I NT ING COI>-lI'ANY

337 \Ve st 36th Street New York, NY 1001 8-6401 ._-=-O:::=-Ja60HeMeHT _< " : ~ Gi--'''i[lbK:;t0 __ . I. ,4'>/- '''''_ .J )B H . l ~ a T '",' 3 '':''... r - t \.. W ..I- - :ca::" , ....... , - : : ; ; : . ~ - - - : . ( ~ " , ( i : : . 1 ~ l l \ O _,'.n ).:0

t : > ' - . . . __ ~ ~ . /
http:///reader/full/yots.eduhttp:///reader/full/yots.eduhttp:///reader/full/yots.edumailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:///reader/full/www,svotS.eduhttp:///reader/full/www,svotS.eduhttp:///reader/full/www,svotS.eduhttp:///reader/full/www,svotS.eduhttp:///reader/full/w%22'w.ada.comhttp:///reader/full/w%22'w.ada.comhttp:///reader/full/yots.edumailto:[email protected]:///reader/full/www,svotS.eduhttp:///reader/full/w%22'w.ada.com


2/17

& RI_.....St Vladimir j Theological f0ar tcr/y 54 ,1 (2010) 5- 36

FROM TH E "RETURN TO THE FATHERS" TO TH ENEED FO R A MODERN ORT H ODO X T H EOL 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 Georges Florovsky, perhaps the gn;atestOrthodox theologian of the 20th century and modern Orthodoxy'sm6st important ecumenical figure (being one of the co-foundersofthe World Council of Churches, and a distinguished memberorand speaker for the Faith and Order Commission ), proclaimedOrthodox theology's need to "return to th e Fathers" and to bereleased from its "Babylonian captivity" to Western the ologyiri -terms of its language, its presuppositions, and its thinking. 2Indeed, he would often rerum to this text with his use of the term"pse udomorphosis" to describe the long process ofLatinization andWesternization of Russian theology.3 His call was quickly adopted

A slightly shorrer version of rhis papcr was preseneed ar rhe WOCATI-ETE/WCCimernarional Congress. held ar rhe Vo los Aq demy for Theological Srudies in Vo-lo s. Greece on June S. 2008. Th is paper was translared from Modern Greek by FrGregory Edwards (e xc epr rhe quorarions from rhe book by P. Kalairzidis, Orthodox),and lvio de rnity: An in troduction [Arhens: lndikros Publicarions. 2007), rr. ElizaberhTheokrirolf).

2 The paper was originally preseneed in German ar rh is conference: cf. G. Florovsky,"\Vesd iche Einfliisse in der russischen Theologie:' in Proces-Verbaux du Prem ier Con gres de Iheologie Ortho do xeaAthenes, 29 novembre-6 dricembre 1936, Ham. S. Alivisaws (e d.) (A rh ens: Pyrsos. 1939), 2 12- 31; rhe same (exr may be found in Kyrios, I I,nr I (B erlin. 1937). 1- 22. English rranslarion (by T. Bird and R. Haugh): "Wes(ernInfluences in Russian Theology" in Collected Works o/Georges Ffo rovsky, vol. 4: Aspects o/Chui'Ch History (Vaduz: Biichervemieb sans(al(. 1987), 1S7-82.

3 G. Florovsky. "\Vesrcrn Influences in Russian Theology:' op cit, passim. C f. idem.YVttys o/Russian Theo Logy, parr I, rransl. by R. L. Nichols, volume Si n Co!!ected W orksofGeorges Ffwovsky (B elmone. MA:No rdland. 1979) and parr II , rr. R. L. Ni chols

5


3/17

7- ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLYand shared by many theologians of the Russian Dia spora, especiallyby the emigre theologian Vladimir Lossky, bu t also by ArchimandriteCyprian Cern, Archbishop Basil Krivocheine, Myra Lot-Borodine,Fr John Meyendorffand others. He also gathered fervent supportersin traditionally Orthodox countries, such as Greece, Serbia, andRomania; the cases of the distinguished Orthodox theologiansFr Dumitru Staniloae (from Rom ani a), Fr Justin Popovic (fromSerbia), and the Greek theologians of the generation of the1960s4 are very characteristic. 1h e theological. movemen t of the

vo1.6, in Collected YVOrks ofGeorgesFlorovsky (Vaduz: Bucherve r-rriei:>Sanstalt, 198;) ..On the origin and use of rhe rerm "pseudomorphosis" in the work of Fr Florovsky,s.ee: N. Kazarian, "La notion de pseudomorPh iJse chez Os\\Yld Spengler et Georges

Flor.ovsky" (unpublished paper presented ar rhe I ~ e r n a t i . o Q a l Coi lferencc' ''Le PerGeorges Florovsky er Ie renouvealJ de la rheologie orthodox.e,au 20e siecle," Sr SergiusInsricure, Paris, Nov emb er 27-28, 2009 ). For a criricai approach to Fr Florovsky'stheor \" of "pseudomorphosis:' cf. Dororhea \ ' 1 e n d ~ b o u t g , 'Pseudomorphosis': AThe ologicalJudgement as an Axiom for..ReseaYch' n the,H isto ry of Ch urch and The- ..ology," The Greek Orthodox Theological Rev,iew.42(1997) : . .

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 d i s r i nglli.l; eJ disciples of Fr FloroV.sky a n J r ~ p r e : S . e n t a r i v e s o f rhe ':neo'parrisric synth esis" " '.and .of rhe "rerum. 0 rhe I:adlers,",bu, each rO.ok a different path in rhe c o n t e m p o r a r LO rth odox theologid wodd . Jn his wrirings, Metropoliran o fP ergamon]ohn Zizio'.ulas :Ecunlcnical 'Parriarchar (:), has tried co articula re a crearive version of rhe"neoparrisricsYllchesis" which is open co contemporary philosophical thought and co th edialogue berween Eas r and \'1esr, consrancJy repeating rhe necessity of a rheologicalsynehesis ofEasrern and \'1estern rrad itions, wirhout which there is no real carholic"ity for [he Ch u rch (cf. for inscance rhe "Ineroduction" to his class ic work Being asCommunion [Ctesrwood, NY: SVS Press, 1985 J, especially pp. 25-2 6). Accordingto some intetpterers, Zizioulas, although he remains fairhful to the Cappadocianconcepts (for example), nevertheless is "thinking wi th the fathers beyond the fathers"(A. Papanikolaou, Apophaticism v. OntologT A Stud), 0/Vladimir Lossk), and johnZizioulas, Ph D Disserrarion [Chicago: The University of Chicago School of Divin"ity, 1998 ], 250< Cf. rhe more temperate analysis of A. Brown, "On the C riticism ofBeing as Com;;'union in Anglophone Orthodox Theology:' in Douglas Knight (ed.),The Theology ojohn Zizioulas (Aldersho t , Hanes & Burlington, VT: Ash gate, 2007). 52,66 ). The Rev Dr John Romanides opened a new path for Greek the ology in th elate 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s and represented a hop eful example of a"neo"patris ric" th eolo gian. In his docroral dissertarion (The Ancestral Sin, Athens,1955 (English tr. by G. S. Gab riel, Zephyr Pub!., 2002)), Romanides reproaches Orthodo x rheology's srifling confinement to borh scho lasticism and academism, suggesting as an alrernative the healing ethos of Orthodoxy with a thoroughness that

"Return to the Fathers"and Modern Orthodox Theology"return to the Fathers" became the hallmark of and the dominant"paradigm" for Orthodox theology for the better part of tn t 20thcentury, and for many its primary task to such a degree that thiscelebrated "retur n to the Fathers" and the effort to "de-\vesternize"Orthodox theology overshadowed all other theological questions,as well as all the challenges the modern world had posed-andcontinues to pose-to Orthodox theology, while other Orthodoxtheological trends, such as the Russian school of theology, fadedfrom view. While the emblematic figure of this movement was,without question, Fr Georges Florovsky, we must not ignore orunderestimate the decisive contributions of other theologians, suchas those mentioned above, in its crystallization-to such a degree,in fact, that many of the positions which ultimately prevailed standin stark contrast totne known theological sensibilities of Florovskyhimself (e.g., "ahead withthe Fathers;' the openness of history, etc.),thus attributing even more conservative features to a movement th at

.already by its very nature ("return;' etc.) included such elements.'. The 20th century was, therefore, a time of renewal for Onho

doxtheology, which for the first time in mapy Centuries, due.to thEn iil.cfljlence of the Orthodox Diasporaandthe ecumenical dialogue,

. .' ventured ou t from its tradi tional Strongholds ancl. ini.tiated a discus. sian with other Christian traditions. It thus attempted to move itsidentity and self-consciousness beyond the dominant academicscholasticism and pietism of the late 19th century by adopting theform of a "neo-patristic syntheSis;' the distinctive mark of which

proved his theological acumen. Neverrheless, [he appearance of Fr Romanides' Ro"miosyn e (Roma nit y) in 1975 marked a dramaric turning poine in his work, whichdrifted from rheology to cultural cri ricism, erhno-rheology and anei-wes ternism.From thai poine, the polarizarion berween a Greek and Latin speaking "Romanity:' on rhe one hand, and a "Frankism" on the orher, became ceneral to Romanides'work, as he saw Frankism as endless ly conspiring to exterminare Romaniry. The lackof an eschatOlogical perspenive combined with a peculiar form of immaneneism inRomanides' corpus (an immaneneism entailed in his rheological blueprint of "put ification, illuminarion, and rheosis") firs in perfectly with the as criprion of a "sacredgeography" to Romaniry, pre seneed rherein as a sacred realm inhabited by the hallowed race of the Romans, the new chosen people who are, excl usively, receprive tosalvation.
http:///reader/full/Rev,iew.42http:///reader/full/Rev,iew.42http:///reader/full/Rev,iew.42http:///reader/full/Rev,iew.42


4/17

9-8 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLYwas the "existential" character of theology,S and the definition ofwhich contrasts repetition or imitation to synthesis, while combining fidelity to tradition with renewal.G But, despite its innovativemoments, it seems that the 20th century-precisely because of theway in which this "return to the Fathe rs" was perceived an d of thecorresponding program to "de-westernize" Orthodox theologywas also for Orthodox theology a time of introvers ion , conservatism, and of a static or fundamentalist understanding of the conceptof Tradition, wh ich very often came to be equated with traditionalism. Thus, just as some Protestant churches still suffer from a certainlevel of fundamentalism regarding the Bible or biblical texts, theOrthodox Church, foriHpan , often finds itselftrapped and fro ze nin a "fundamentalism of"tradi tion" or ina "fundamentalism of. -I ," . _. .the Fath ers;' which makes,-ic hard for it to wo rk Ou t in practice itspneumatology and its charismatic dimension. This preve nts it frombeing part ofo r in dialQgqewith the modern world, and discourages it from displaying its creative gifts and strengths.

Indeed, the ,particul ady defensive way of l!nderstanding F l o r Q !-t u r n to the Fathers" an d the .systematizationofhis

a Q 0 q E c " ~ h r i s t i a n H ellenism;' which considers the latter tor. , ; n ~ t e g o r y of Christian existence:'7and' "somethi ng mo re tha.h

5 . . Cf for example G. Florovsky; " Pan-istic Theology and the Ethos of rheO rrbodoxChur ch" in Collected Works 0/ Georges Floyovsky, voL 4: AJpects oj Church H istory(Vadu z: Bucherve rrriebsanstalt, 1987 ), 17. According to Metropolitan John Zizioulas("Fr Georges Florovsky: The Ecumenical Teacher;' Spax!s, iss ue 64 ( 1997): 14-15 (inGreek]): "The main goal of theology was, for him (Sc. Florovsky)' the 'neo-parr isti c sy n

.. thesis; which means, as we shall see, a deeper quest for the existential se nse of patr istictheology and its synthesis, which requires rare creative skills and a gifi: for synt hes is."

6 Cf., for instance, Fr Florovsky's "rheological resrament ;' published by A. Blane,Georges Floi"ovsky : Russian Intellectual, Orthodox Churchman (C res twood, NY: SVSPress, [993), !,54: "Ir is by rhat way th at I was led quite early to the idea of what I amcalling now ' the Neo-Parristic Synthesis.' It should be more rhan jusr a collection ofPatr isti c sayings Ot statements. It must be a synthesis, a creari ve reassessment of thoseinsights which were granted ro the Hol y Men of old. It must be Patristic, fa irhful roth e spirit and vision of the Fathers, ad mentem Pat;'um. Yet, it must be also Neo-Patristic, since it is ro be addressed to the new age, with its own problems and que ries."

7 G. Florovs ky, "Ways of Russian Theolog y," in Collected W o ; ~ k 0/Georges Floro vsky,vol. 4: A spects o/Church History, 195. Cf idem, T-f/a)'s o/Russian Theology, in CollectedWorks o/Georges Flo ro-vsk)" vo l. 6, 297.

"Return to the Fathers" and Modern Orthodox Th eologya passing stage" in the Church,S and which is integrally conn ec tedwith Hellenism, patristics, and catholicity,9 eventually helpedconsolidate th e idea that we needed constantly to take refuge inthe Church 's past-and, in this case, the Fathers in particular-sothat we could be certain that we were within th e limits of the truth,This version of the "return to the Fathers;' moreover, seems never toremrn to a focus on the future "together wi th Fathers" (as Florovskyhimselfadvocated in both his writings and his talks) , th us rendering

. Orthodox theology mute and un easy in the face of the challengesof the modern world. We Orthodox thus seem to be satisfied wi ththe strong sense of tr adition that distinguish es us, inasmuch as the OJ;:thodox, more than anyother Christian confession, havep res.erved ., 'the w holeness obhe theology, spiritual inheritance, andpiety of -"the undivided Church. As a result of thisperceptiori, ve ry often' th eOrthodox world is unable to see another mi ss ion and ano therfunc

". rion for theolog y today apart from the continual re-turn to its sources' .a nd roots, or the repetition and "translation" into modern p arlance

,orehe wri tings of th e Fathers of the Ch urch? wh ich the past, gUided by the Holy Spirit , ha$deposi ted im o ,the.m:asury of the fai th , thus8 G. Fl orovsky, "Ways of Russian ThcoI6g y;'iop ic1 (,-195. Cf Idem, vVtiys ofRussian

Th eology, in Collec ted Wo rk.io/GeorgesF/ordvsky, vol. 6, 297.9 "In a sense the C hurch i t s d Hellenis ti c, is a Hellenistic for mation- in oth er words.

H ellenism is a sranding category of C hristian existence. ( ..) let us be more Greek robe tr uly carholic, to be uuly orthodox:' G, Fl orovsky, "Parrisrics and Modern Theology;' in Pro ces-Verbaux clu Premier Congres de Theolog ie Orthodoxe d Athenes, op cir,2.4 1-42. C f also his a rticle: "The Ch ristian Hd lenism;' Orthodox Observer, no. 442(January 1957): 10: "Let us be more 'Hellenic' in order that we may be uu ly Christian ." An exhaustive analys is and ctitique of these ideas ofFlorovsky ca n be found inmy docroral dissertation: P. Kalaitzidis, Hellenicity andAnti-westernism in the G;'eekTheological Generation 0/the 60's, School of The ology, Arisrode Universi ty of Thessa lon iki, 2.008, especially pp. 173 - 205 [in Greek). Cf idem, T hellenisme ch f

I


5/17

--

11

ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY0creating a peculiar kind of Monophys itism. The latter leads to thedepreciation, obsolescence, and even elimination of human reason,inasmuch as it believes that there is nothing more to say, since theFathers have said everything that needs to be said once and for all,and since patristic theology contains the solution to every problemin the past, present, and future. Yet, human reason, like all of humanriature, was fully assumed by the hypostasis of God the Word in theInci.rnation, and was fully deified during the Ascension of the Lord,when he ascended to the right hand of the Father.

It is true, as we already noted above, that Florovsky always emphasized that the "returri to the Fathers" did not mean the repetitionor j,mjtaticn of the pasf,cbnfined to its various forms;cir an escape 'froiTihistoly,a denial of the present and history. Onthe cbmf-a:ry; - :. f what he continual ly stressed and highlighted was a creative [editn ' . 'and ' meeting with the spirit of the Fathers, -the acquisi tiori 'ofthe

( ~ . mind of the Fathers (admentem patrum), and the creative 111111'-m 6 ~ t o f the fucure. JO In ':the words ofFr Georges Florovskyihi'ITlself, .In"a meaningful extract from the last chap\er of h i d a s s i c work,vvays o/Russian Iheology:" . . . . :) : .

Orthodox t h e o l o g ) f r r ~ t o v e r i t s independence from western influence onfy dli;ottgh a s p i r i t ~ a r i - u r n to its patristicsources and foundation s. Returning to ,the fathers, howeve r,does not mean abandoning the preseniage, escaping fromhistory, or quitting the field of battle. Patristic experiencemust not only be preserved, but it must be discovered andbrought into life. Independence from the non-OrthodoxWest need not become es trangement from it. A break withthe West would provide no real liberation. Orthodox thoughtmust perceive and suffer the western trials and temptations,and, for ns own sake, it cannot afford to avoid and keep silentover them. [... ] The future is more truly and profoundlyrevealed when seen as an obligation rather as an expecta

10 Cf for instance, G, Fl orovsky "Patristic Theology and the Ethos of the OrthodoxChurch;' in Co!!ected Works o/Georges Florovsky, vol. 4: Aspects o/Church History, opcit, 18,20-22, ibid, "Western Influ ences in Russian Theology;' 180-82, ibid. "TheWays of Russian Theology," 208-209.

"Retum to the Fathers " and 1I1odern Orthodox Theologytion and premonition . The future is no t merely somethingexacted o[ awaited-it ' is something created. The Christiancalling inspires us exactly with the responsibility of duty [... ]Orthodoxy is not only a tradition , it is a task [ .. ]. And genuine historical synthesis lies not in interpreting the past, but increativelyfulfilling t he futureYFlorovsky's insistence, however, on the timelessness and eternal

ness of Christian Hellenism, i.e., in the necessity of Greek c a t e g o ~ ries of thought for the formulation and expression of the eternal truth of the Gospel in every time and place, as well as his refusal to examine-along with "back to ihe ,Fathers"and "ahead with the Fathers" -even the possibility o f " b ~ y , n d t h e Fathers;' l-argely negates his theology's openness and orien:catiolltothe future, Floro

. vsky could understand the "return'tothe'Fathers';'ih terms of ereat vity and renewal; he could also passionately ,proclaim "ahead withthe Fathers"; however, whacuh iniate ly se,SJ!1s prevail in his:work,primarily in how it was u n d e r s t 6 ~ a n i n t e r p r e t e d b h i s followers, is the element of"return.':"'The caU to "return to the Fathers" didnotsimply offer an -iden.tityand acharaqer with whichOnho.dox:theologianscouldmove through the terrible upheavals of t h ~ 2 Q t hcentmy and survive,spiritually and intellectuall y.12 He provided an' \'easily digestib le slogan and a sense of security and warmth amid acollapsing Christendom.

We .should note here that the movement to "return to the Fathers" is not a unique phenomenon that has taken place only among the Orthodox. As I demonstrated in a recent article,13 the starting point for every church reform movement has been a movement to "return to the sources;' and this is precisely what we see in the same period in the Protestant world with dialectical theology, II G. Florovsky, ]IUlys o/Russian Theology, p. II, in Collected Works 0/Georges FLorovsky,

vo l. 6, 301, 308, 1 2 For sim ilar remarks, cf B. Gallaher, "'Waiting for the Barbarians': Identity and Po

lemicism in Georges Florovsky" (unpublished paper presented at the International Conference: "Le Pere Georges Florovsky et Ie renouveau de la theologie onhodoxe au 20e siecle;' 5t Sergius Institute, Paris, November 27-28, 2009),

13 p, Kalaitzidis, "Challenges of Renewal and Reformation Facing the Orthodox Church," The Ecumenical Review 61 (2009): especially 144-46,
http:///reader/full/intellectually.12http:///reader/full/intellectually.12http:///reader/full/intellectually.12


6/17

-4 'ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLYpartaking in che condicion of modernicy, Ie would be wrong,however, co claim chac chese cwo approaches accoune for theeneire range of Orchodox responses to modernicy, chey didnoc in the 1930s and chey do noc today, A large speccrum ofOrchodoxy today seems nor to engage wich modernic ac all,it simply turns away from it, condemns it or tries toYrecon-srruct itselfoueside of it IS

It thus becomes clear that the issue of modernity and the dilemmawhether to go "back to the fathers" or "beyond the fathers" are ofcrucial importance [or our discussion, The Russian school oftheology seemed to be more open both to the issues raised by the modernworld and to the need for a post-patristic ' theology. Fr AlexanderSchmemann describes its' th eological t ~ S K : '

, 0'rthodo'x: 'h ' < ' ~ " "k' " . " " , ' . Cd' ' '( eo.og) must eep ItS pacns[lc rOun atlons, bue, it must also ero ri'; - F ' ' d'h-- h ,: " f ,:-'-./:) , " -, teat ers I ,It 15 to respon to anew situation created by' ceneuries ofphilosophical developmenL And in this ilew synehesisor reconstruction the we st- -oiern philosophical rraarl:ion (soi.irce anurn'oither of r l ~ e RussiaI1' , I ;' L"relig iou s philosop-h ( of the 19ch and 20th centuries) rather r " " ' ;th:1n the Hellenistf'\ ' , . , " , , - ,, -1. _Wlthm the Orthodox mIlieu, blblic,al studle; h ~ d a l r e a ~ y

: ~ ' , ~ u ; f f e r e d neglect;nmv , here was a t h e o r e t l c a l J u s t l O c a . t l O It. ,fl ' : li3iblicaJ studies were viewed as "Protestant;' while.patristic.srudies'" and , the rediscover.y of the Orthodox ascetic and neptic tradition

. \yere consideredtl1e ,tr'IJ!Y "Orthodox" ~ l I b j e ~ t ~ , ~ ! 1 spite of theprolif .eration ofpatristic studies in the-se


7/17

16 17T VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY "Return to the Fathers"and lvfodern Orthodox Theologyfoundations 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. An d 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 isthat all the great Fathers were major interprerers of the Scriptures. It in fact a "betrayal" of the spirit of the Fathers inasmuch as it betrayswas forgotten that patristic theology is simultaneously unconfused and ignores the very core and essence of their thought, i.e., a continand indivisible biblical theology, and Orthodox tradition, as well uous dialogue with the world, and an encounter with and assumpas Orthodox theology, are patristic and biblical at the same time; tion of the historical, social, cultural, and scientific context of theirthey are patristic and Orthodox only to the extent that they are alsQ time, as is particularly well illustrated by th e great fourth-centurybiblicapo '. Fathers' engagement with Hellenism. Today, in contrast to the2. Patristic theology was mythologized, removed from its ~ i s r o r i - b ~ l d n e s s and breadth of the Fathers'}thewi,ciespread propagaion ,c. context and i p p ~ 9 . a c h e d ahisrorically, almost metaphysically . popularization, and "necessity" of thuaH ~ r e t u r n to th e Fat:hers"The ~ a r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i ~ a . l c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n whichthe P i l t r i S J i c ,j ns>t:" only made the Fathers a n i ~ l t e g r a l Pil.ftof ~ r ; . O r t h o d o x f a d " " , , v r j ttyn , the F a t h ~ r s ' continuous interaction and dialo.guc.}Y th . . '. and of the dominant Orthodox "establishmem; 'but.hasalso tomeh i l o s o p h y and outside philosophical trends oftheiiera:their to characterize and accompany e v e r y k i o b n s e r y a t i v and.stLi d).- ~ n d free us.e ofrhe hermeneutical methods of their t i m e ~ fundamentalist version of Orthodox .t,he.ohgy. And the constant~ I } this was f o r g o t t e n A ~ d we have nOt y e t a d e g u f e l y c P r : - s j . . invocation of the authority o('tpq., F.


8/17

19

. !

18 ST VLADJj\llR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERL Y "Return to theFathers" andModern Orthodox-Theologyexamples of which are Fourviere's school in Lyons and the publi influence" had become one of its priorities. These theological trends,cation of the patristic works series "Sources Chretiennes" by its with the exception perhaps of ecumenical theology, the theology ofpreeminent collaborators22), the liturgical renewal movement,23 the mission, and the movement for patristic and liturgical renewal, doreconnection of the Bible with the liturgy,24 as well as the Church's no t appear to have been influenced by Orthodoxy, despite the factand theology 's social commitment, are only some of the aspects of that important Orthodox theologians actively participated in thewestern theology's attempt at liberation and self-critique, which ecumenical movement from its inception.27 Orthodox theology'swere connected with the so-called "nouvelle theologie"2S move silence and absence from the contemporary theological discussionsment, without which the Orthodox movement for the "returp to does not seem to have gone unnoticed by mo dern western theolothe Fathers" wou ld 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 offree ing itself expressed in contemporary terms and its continued invocation of28,. from western influence and "returning toxheFathers" -c:-deaUng, the authority of the Fathers andoftradition.

. inoxher words, with issl,les of sdf-undersqnding n i d e n ~ i t y ~ . 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 F a t h y r s has:':contributed, decisively- and nega

, .... . from the major theological discussions Qrthe;20rhcentury and had tively-tO the polarizatt0h 'bei:\veen Eas[ and West, to Orthodoxy'salmost no influence in setting the lheologicaLagenda: Dialectical total rej ection of the West, an d to the cultivation and consolidationtheology, existential and h e r m e n e u t i c a l . r h ~ o l o g y ; the theology of of an anti-western anGi c u m e n i spirit. In referring to anti.. histOry and culture, the theologypfse(ularizationanci mqckrnity" w ~ s ~ e r n i s . m ; w e d o n d t allmeari the perfet;;tly legitimate criticisms ' -. '"th e,,"nouvelle theologieI: comextual . lheologies, the rheol()gy of of the West and its .deviations from the tradi tion of the undivided :'. .' , . . . ..


9/17

20 21T VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY "Return to the Fathers" an d Modern Orthodox TheologyHere we run into a major paradox , which is worth sEOppirig EO an d illogical invective against the West. Thus Orthodoxy was seenanalyze. 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," an d 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 an d instead was content20th century, was reared no t only on patristic literature, hymnol with scholasticism an d pietism, theological rationalism, and legal

ogy, and even the Bible, bu t also by the great works of contempo ism. As a result, younger Orthodox theologians, particularly inrary western theology, which he tOok into consideration or with traditionally Orthodox countries, learned no t only the interprewhich he was in cons tan t dialogue (A. von Harnack, K. Barth, E. tive schema of an orthodox East versus a heretical West ,bu t i tBrunner, Y. Congar, H. de Lubac ,.L. Bouyer, E. L. Mascal, R. Bult also bec ame commonplace to contrast, in a self-satisfied way, themann, A. Nygren, J. A. Moehler, E. Mersch, P. Batiffol, G. L. Pres better version whichis Orthodoxy (wit h the Cappadocian F a t h e r ~ , tige, G. Kittel, E. Gilsou, J. LebreEOn,P. Tillich, et al). Moreover, M::t'xiiiius theCorifessor, so-called "mystical" theology, StGrego-ryFlorovsky never adopx.eq . the idea 9f a polarization between East " Pahun as; the Russian theology of the Di asp6ra, etc.}witht)hdnfe ; ;1\an d West; he utilize,d Latin ,Father5, such as Augustine , in his e r s i ) J 1 represent ed by the West ("vithits scholastic tneologr,ecdesiological works , he lwrote many of his classic studies for an .-:Th dn 'laS Aquinas, the Holy Inquisition, a theolog y of l e g a s n ' l i } d ecumenical audience,or as an Orth.Odox contribution to ecumepi pietism: etc.) . This is how the modern e s t remains understdbd' . 'cal n i . e e t i n g s ; U ) d , a b o y all, he was ~ l w a y q u i c k to maintainthat - , I: ' today in many Orthodox countries. Despite the significaric -,p rog-:th e catholicity of h c o u l d notonly ilOtexist with .Only the " .t;i"_,n h a t has takenpla& in the fields of pitristic s t u ( : H e s ; c ; - l '.. \X1est; bUta)sQ thac .it_coy,ld .no t exist with on ly the East, an d that .- . ; , I, 'ogy ofche local ch mch, 'and eLlcharistic, ccclesiology, the XX/est is. ca tholicity requires both .lungs of t h c C l : : wes.tern and . ; ;: , still seen through this lens coiivenience arid

;.;.0,:.' . t '. YJ.:p.,like S iamese t""ins.29 However, as we alreadYnotf cl. ... the simplicity or, moresirrip1t fi6t'i1:igl10rm1eeQhi s climate -has abet_ . ~ - t . : ''':i . . ; m ovement for a "return tQ th e Fathers" was i g ~ i f i s a t : t t . i r t B t i e ~ c ; e d ted in depriving the B r t h tHeo16gical generation of th e ,'.b}Z th e participation an d th e work of other theQIQgi.ans . (L9ssky, '; f . ~ right an d th e possibility otb eco r'n in g fa:I'Tiiliar an d iriceracting withStaniloae, Popovic, et al), wh ile the positions and the general theo the fundamental works ~ f w e s t e r n theology, which remain, for the.logical line of thought which ultimately prevailed was, in many most part, untranslated or unknown in th e Orthodox world . Weplaces, at odds with Florovsky's positions, such as, most no tably, an have th us forgotten how much Russian Diaspora theology, as well

intense anti-western ism and anti-ecumenism. 111e Fathers .and their as the "return co th e Fathers" moveme'nt itself, owes to the West; 30theology were often seen as the unique characteristic an d exclusive the Orthodox theology of the second half of the 20th century ha sproperty of the East-thus blatantly ignoring the Christian West's lost, in other words, its sense of hiscory an d interaction.31important contributions in rediscovering the Fathers-while morethan a few ...times patristic theology was used to wage an outdated

30 The neo -paui scic schoo l's ascem ove r che rheology of che Russian school arrer che29 Cf. G. F1orovsky, "Th e Legacy and che Task of Onhodox Theology," AngLcan Th eo 193 0s and 1940s, was aided by, among ochers, wesrem conven s [Q Onhodoxy whoLogicaL Review, 31 (1 949 ): 65 -7 1; idem, "Some Co m ribucofs co 20rh cencury Ecu shared ics passion fo r che liturgi cal , asce rica l and mysrical u adicions of che Farhers; cf.menical Thoughr ," EWiilc;',ism II A H istoricaL Approach, vol. 14 o f CoLLec ted Horks P. Valliere, Modern Russian TheoLogy. Bukharev, SoLoviev, BuLgakov. Orthodox Th eoLofG. FfoTOvsky (Belmont, M A : Nordland, 1989),209-10 ; G. Flo[Qvs ky, "Ways of ogy in a New Key, op cir, 5, 6.Ru ssian Theology:' in Aspects of Ch urch History, vo l. 4 o f CoLLected Wo ;-ks ofGeorges 31 C f. P. Kalairzidis, HeLLei1icity and An ti-weste;'nis m in the Greek Th eoLogicaL Genera Ffo rovsky (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 989), 202-4. tion of the 60 's, op cic, es pecially 54, 48 [in Greek].

[ . II 'I
http:///reader/full/adopx.eqhttp:///reader/full/adopx.eqhttp:///reader/full/adopx.eqhttp:///reader/full/t%22%22ins.29http:///reader/full/t%22%22ins.29http:///reader/full/interaction.31http:///reader/full/interaction.31http:///reader/full/interaction.31http:///reader/full/adopx.eqhttp:///reader/full/t%22%22ins.29http:///reader/full/interaction.31


10/17

22 23T VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY "Return to the Fathers" and iv[odern Orthodox TheologyThe 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 somethingnew under-way in Orthodoxtive and "traditional" Vladimir Lossky, is even more complicated . thought, and for the di smissive 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 SlavoOrthodox theologian of the Russian Diaspora, an d particularly his phile thoughr. 34classic work The Niystical Theology of theEaste rn Church 32 (which, What is beyond doubt, however, is the fact that both the Russianapart from the impact it had in the West an d 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 ofmysticism, and inspired a renewed interest in environment of dialogue with theWest, an d no t in an environment

.the Areopagite corpus and Palamism, especially among the Greeks of zealotry and Orthodox introversion. And so, as strange or even and 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 r e n a i s s a n c o f O r ~ h o d o x theology

. ;lnci{ruitful w;:ty; ,bythe movement for a patristic revival wnit:h \{ras ~ ~ ; - . ~ . in ' th e 20th century and to its relcasefrom ;ii;s ' B a b y l o n i ~ n c a p t i v ~ , .. . :.takirig. plad: anhat t ime within the Rornan C a t h o l i c C h l . l c - a ~ ity'? to western scholastic and pietistic :t'heokigy. The opportunities

MeyendorfFnotes: " and fruitful challenges:posed to the Onhodox by the ecumenical: This book was a response to an urgent need: F r e n c h - ' ! ; : .: dialogue ultimately ledOrth40x theolpgy ou r of its parochial..',':' ':'" , cism was undergoing a period of patristic and l i t L i ~ a l ' " r e d l S ' > - ' ihrroversion and its insular s@ks'ufficien6yi,::ahd contributed deci- .

" . .-, . : . ~ . cOYery, which spread [0 other European countries; a t i c u l a d si'vdy: to the emergence of the g r ~ a t forms of the theoiogy .of Fhe. Germany, after. the LO,5sky was the O i':!= hoa ox vo ice [het . Di1isp"ora; an d to the d f i g ; t a : l t e s e s o f G i e e k - s p e a k i r i g thealqgy" ".sought a meeting w;idl t h i s m Q v e m e . u . t ; F r e s m i n g the chal sucIi -asrhe theology.!(if, e p e r s 6 n . Orthodox fundamentalisrrr :....,.lenging riches of East,em Qrtho.qoxyto)h t; ,\'(/est. 33 . whit!i ' very .ohenthtiv"tS in monastic Or pro-monastic 'enviro'n- - " . iBu t as Kristina Stockl notes' itlhel:


11/17

25

r"",;1. ,: 1 . ~ i., .",F : ~ : ; "

=:':

il'il;" :11liil

24 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLYincludes both East and West, etc.), and their lasting concern for acreative and rejuvenating engagement with the spirit of the fathers,i.e., for a neo-patristic synthesis and renaissance, we must admit thatthe "return to the Fathers" and "Christian Hellenism:' as a proposalfor a theological agenda, is basically a conservative choice, inasmuchas they ultimately refer more to theology's pa st than to the presentand th e future. And while this theological movement 's intention isto push Orthodoxy out of its inertia an d into a dialogLie with the

.contemporary world on the basis of the neocpatristic syn the sis, themovement itself is essentially absent from the theoLogical agenda

,that establishes the broader historical context'ofthisdialogtie;,vii .I!"nodernity and late moderni ty. We should ," ;,ofcol1 t;sel' rernemhef'h . that, for primarily historical, reasons, t h i M r l d Bid not

r "" organicall y participate in the phenom enoa;-bf :rnodetnicy. Iedidno t experience the Renaissance, the Reformation ; or the CounterC

, ' 8eformation, religious wars or rhe, Erd ight.tlljJlem, the French "or.the Inpustrial revolution ,. the rise ofthe subject; humanrighrs, ore r e ~ i g i o u s l y neut ra l nation-state. \Vhar h,is been recognized as

thS c Q " . : o m o d e r n i t y s e e f n ~ [ 0 ha\:e remained alien to O r t h d o >" ," ,J . which,cQl)tin1..leuQ b s l ! l s p i C i o u s of modernity. Th is uncertaimF 1,;:-v ,. .:.!;helps explain' Q r t h o d : 0 ~ ; : Y : s difficulty in communicating with, the ', , .-g-i "

, contemporary. (pOSt- ) '111odern world, and it raises at the same time " '" ' ; ~ ~ . ' the.questionofwhetheior not Orthodox Christianity and (neo) . I .!patris tic theology came to, an end before moderni ty.

Indeed, if we consider the precedent of the Roman CatholicChurch, we will see that scholastic philos ophy and theology-whenit was reinstated in the second half of the nineteenth century withNeo-Thomism at the forefront-was meant to be, among otherthings, a defense against the challenges th at modernity posed to theinflexible theological es tablishment of the Roman Catholic Churchat that time ; therefore, mutatismu tandis, the crucial question in thepresent context is the following: has not the celebrated "return tothe Fathers;' as it has been unders tood and app lied by several Orthodox theologians, served also as a bulwark against modernity and thechallenges it posed, in spite of itself and contrary to its declared

"Return to the Fathers" andModern Orthodox Theolog),aim of renewal? Has it not thus hindered both the word of God in its incarnation and revelation within each particular social and cultural context, and the development, within Orthodox theology, of hermeneutics, biblica l and historical research, systematic theology, ant hropological and feminist studies, and political, liberation, and ecumenical theology? Has it not contributed in its own way to making the entire Orthodox ecclesiallife a prisoner to pre-modern structures and practices and to a conservative mentality?

In any case, modernity and post-modernity (or late modernity)and the framework they provide constitute the broader histo rical, social, and cultural efntiromrten t within which the OrthodoxChurch is called to Hve ,af?,tl 'carr y- durHrsniissi6h';i t is here that theChurch is called up dn 'ri(nci arid'tlitkagain to incarnate the Chtistian truth about Gba; thbW:()ffd and humanity. Certainly, modernOrthodox theology,"'iris'plredmaihly by the spirit of the Fathers,reformulated duringthc)Othcentury an admirable theology of the .,' /'''::Incarriiltion, of "assum'ing;''fl'esh.'' Howeverr,its position on a serie's' : ~ ' i . ; .of issues revOlving, essentially, aroLind asp'eets of the modernist : ~ < ~ ' ' ' ~ ; ' ~ , ' '

"phenomei10n, but also the core of i t s e c c l e s I i u n d e r s t a n d i " ~ , , , : ; T .,. ,ih l t s o f t e h left this otherwise remarkable 1 6 g f C i f - I h c a d b " ~ : in 'ib-eyance and socially inert. Such issues 'int hide h tflU'an'Ygl1tsiIrhe';secularization of politics andinstitutlO'i'fs, th e-de.Yactaiizati'onofpolitics and ethnicit y, the overturningo festablished social hidarchies in the name of a fairer society, theaffirrnatio n,of love an dcorporeality and the spiritual function of sexuality, the position ofwomen, social and cultural anachronisms, and so forth. The typical Orthodox approach to such issues, sadly, confirms yet again th eview th at Orthodox people content themselves with theory, andmake no progress or fall tragically short when it comes to practice;that we prefer to "contemplate" and "o bserve" rather than to act,forgetting or Side-s tepping the fundamentally antinomic and anticonventional character of the ecclesial event and settling down inthe safe confines of "tradition" and cUStOms handed down fromthe past, and the comfort of the traditional society 'which, in theminds of many, is by its very nature identical to "Tradition" itself.


12/17

---6 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL OUARTERLY "Return to the Fathers" and lvlodern Orthodox Theology 27Yet theology at least ought to be incarnate, to remind us constantly of understanding the theological project and a methodologicalof the antinomic and idoloclastic character of the ecclesial event, framework for "doing theology." It is evident that the above analysisbu t also to commit itself to the consequences and repercussions of presupposes an approach, at once constructive and critical, ofthe 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,TheNeedfin- a New Incarnation ofthe Wordand the Challenges and reminds us that we cannot do theolo gy in a purely intellectualofContextual 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 differentand determinant context of patristic . theology was the then- forms Cifhuman cultu re an d theological expression.3sdominant Greek philosophy and c u l t u r ~ , t h e n we must seriously Therefore, theology, as the prophetic voice and expression ofand honestly consider '""hether weare facing today the same context, the 'Ohurch's self-understanding, must function in reference to theand if we are living and creating in the fram :ewOfk of the same type - anl'inomic arid dual'::natllred character of the Church:' Just' 'asof culture, or if we fadng ,thec hallengcs 'of a post-hellenic and" G h u r . ~ h no t of this world, so theology aims at expressing-a ",,'}""consequently post-patristiceraY -And j f we do, the next crucial m a t i : c ~ x p e r i e n c e and"a transcendent reality, over and a b d v e v - b r a i ' ~ ' ._.!.. ,,..question is whether tholmy and the task of theology is to defend concepts, or names, JUS( as the Church lives and goes forth -li m:, ' or to preserve a certain era., a-certain culture, a certain language, or, ~ ; . ; i ; .. w r l d , so theology seeks dialogue and c o m m u n i c a t i b ' i i ' on the contrary, to serv'tY rhe truthofthe ' Gospe.l an d the people . ' Y " " ~ n. t t o r i c a l preserit


13/17

,.28 ST VLADJj\lfIKS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY "Return to the Fathers" andModern Orthodox Theology 29

I

~ ; ' - . : ,- .

keep ignoring the lessons of history. Without this process of unconfused osmosis and reception of th e world and of history, withoutthis gesture of dialogue, moving towards the world and "witnessing" to it, neither the Church nor theology can exist, no r can God'srevelation, since the Church does no t exist for itself bu t for theworld and for the benefit of the world: "for the life of the world,"39After all, God's Revelation has always taken place within creationand history,40not in some unhistorica l, timeless universe unrelatedto the world. As the late theologian Panagiotis Nellas, founder of 'the well-known Greek theological journal Synaxis} noted propheticallymore than twenty years ago: . ' .

, '-... i t is no t po ss ib1etoday to have a true Revelation of G051 :, t.; ," \ vi thoUL elnployingas the material for that revelation today's' '; r l. socia1.ndtural, seier,tifie, and other realities. It is i m p o s s i b l e ~ " \ ~ '

for God to motivate, to move man unless He comes into .:'. comact with Ollr paiticular, histor ical fle sh; it is n P i b l e : ; ~ '.;.' f o r H i m t o s a v e m ~ u ) , u l 1 1 e s s H e t r a n s f i g u r e s o u r l i f c : ~ ' . r ; : ~ ! : ;

;--Ci-::....,1._

continues to be scorned and disparaged by the Church, neglectedas revelatOry material and flesh to be assumed.

It is imperative, then, for Orthodox theology to examine thepossibility ofdeviSing, through the Holy Spirit, new terms and newnames ("to coin new names:' in the words ofSt Gregory the Theologian), correlated to today's needs and challenges, just as the need fora new incarnation of the Word and the eternal truth of (he Gospelis also urgently necessary. A theology of repetition, a theology thatis satisfied simply with a "return to (he sources," or that relies,onthe "return to the Fathers" and the neo-patristic synthesis, cannot,by definition, respond to this need ancl - ! 1 1 a n i f o l d c h a l l ~ n g e s of~ h e post-modern pluralistic world. W h . ; . , t h e r o r e . l ; e q 4 ~ J e d is

' HOt a repetition andaperpetuation n i a f ~ o d the ret,icence,, , ,-> _ . , 1_ . .'Qften adopted by the Orthodox in ' ' . n S e towards modernityand pluralism, but a creative e n c o u n t e ~ and ; s,erious theologicaldialogue with whatever cha1l517s.ss. i t y ;md p O S t - 1 ( 1 ? ~ pose, a "re-orientationJof d ~ r . g . i t y ] J ~ ~ m j n s i d e : ' to u?e tpe

. I ' ~ ' " ......,.l ~ - f

. ,

'Expanding on this lineoE thought, we might add, ' ! : ~ e r e f ( ) r e i : h a t .a Beshless theology \vhlch refuses ' to f l ~ e r ~ i t h t he ,vIder

'social and cultural realiti Es of itS ti me:::Js-;incbhceivable, whether 'it is dealing with m o d e f r i i t p o S - t - r r 1 o q H ~ ~ i t y or late modernity.A theology that does no t take t ~ ) i t s d t t h e :"flesh" of its time is'equally inconceivable-just as it is inconceivable for the Churchto be insular, refusing to be drawn ou t of itself to meet the worldand history, to evangelize and transform it. Thus, the Church andits theology cannot move forward in the \\Torld while ignoring or

sx;pression o f H i s ) 3 e a ~ i t q ~ e Ig!l,ati}l,s iV of A n t i o 2 - : w . - i l l t ; h e D r t h o d o x ~ ~ ~ ~ \ . h - f . ~ i ~ h , f to renewed t h e a n t h r o p i S ~ \ ~ t ; ..


14/17

310 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLYexpectation accompanied by the dimension of the future and therenewing breeze of the Spirit, dimensions so definitive for the life andtheology of the Ch urch and yet so lackingtoday. For in response to thechallenge of globalization, cosmopolitanism and internationalism,today the wind of traditionalism and fundamentalism is once againblowing violently through the life and theology of the Church.Whereas fundamentalism is a flight into the past of pre-modernityand involves turning back the course of history, eschatology is anactivean d demanding expectation of the coming Kingdom of God, .the ~ e w world which we await; as such, it feeds into a dynamicc;:omrhirrnent to the present, an affirmation andopenness .to.the f u t ~ r e Qf the Kingdom in which the fullness and jdentity of the C h urch. isto be found. In other words, the ChUl:chdo es norderiv:ei ts s\1bsrance ... I princip;Jly from what it i ~ , b u t rather f r o m w h wiu b y c o ~ e i n the future, in th e eschatological time which, since the Resurrection of Ch ris t and th e coming of the H olySpirix :at Per1tecost, has :tlready .beg un toilluminate and i ~ 8 u e n c e the:pesentan


15/17

33

'

r !i;:i l ,

11"

32 ST VLADINlfR'S THEOLO GICAL QUARTERIY - "Return to the Fathers" an d i.1odern Orthodox The070gyOr , to recall the apt words of the late Greek theologian Nikos theology, a renewal that is no t yet complete. An d "Christian Nissiotis: Hellenism" is a type or paradigm of the Church's relationship to

the world and no t an "eternal category of Christian existence," or anSo the Tradition of Orthodoxy [... ] is not history but witness; 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 By ~ ofConclusionstOod from this Beginn ing is the "new;' that which irrupts intOthe world in order to make all things new once and for all in O f course, the crucial and decisive question that naturally arisesChrist, 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 no t 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.q fthe " n e ( ) ~ p i t r i s t i c synthesis":, theology" (inboth theteniporal and norniativesense of the term).

Thus "traditiofl" in thS.Church is nor merely the co ntinuity of ' In t ~ e words,of Professor Petros Vassiliadis:" i' human memorY,or d?f p ( . : r m a n ~ n c e o f . r i t e s and habits. Vlti - ., tMo d


16/17

34 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICArQUARTERLY ''Return to the Fathers" and Modern Orthoaox Theology 35other things, one objective difficulty that would no t permit a positive thought and its relevance to modernity and current issues , as whenoutcome 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 foryet come. It may ye c be achieved if we do noc abandon the the present and future of humanity;"S4 and this happen s because,way outlined by che theo logians of the 20th century. >.]Bur the confession of a "patriscic faith" not only implies the srudyanother qualicative leap forward is needed in o rd er to build of patriscic writings and the anempc co bring the legacy of theche neo-patriscic sy nthesis upon chis foundacion,a leap chac fathers co life, but also the belief chat our era is no less parriswe, who have entered the 21 st century, can make. It is neces- . ric than any other. The "go lden 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.;;

= - ~ ' "am deeply convin.ced that fundamental and indispensable If 1 0 h d hI f hI -f: d ,.: . ' . -d. O f' h " . h h ldb h 1 . 11 .,. - ~ " " . \" ' " .,- tne rt 0 ox t eo ogy 0 t e ast lew ~ c a es was msplreelement 0 suc a new approac s ou e c e oglca y COns lS- d " " ..


17/17

ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLtJGICAL QUARTERLY6thought when and where it is needed? The "return to the Fathers" SI VI.dimi,' i c " I J 2 L " ' r l ( T ~ r 53A (: 0 10) 37 .68was conceived during the 20th century as a "paradigm shift" forO rthodox th eolog y. The question is whether we are now confront "HER THAT Is No B RIDE":i n g -or if we sho uld confront-a new "paradigm shift" for Ortho

ST THECLA AND TH E RELATIONSHIP BETWEENdox theology today. To do justice to this extremely important andcomplex question, however, we will need another paper ; here, I SEX , GENDER, AND OFFICEhave only been able to lay ou t som e preliminaryconsiderations. 56

Faithful to this spirit, we have not attempted to ignore or bypass David J. Dunnp atristic thought, bu t to bring it into dialogue with th e difficult and .provocative questions posed by modernity and late modernity. I The purpose of this pape r is to introduce the figure ofSt Thecla intob e l i , ( h a t t h e Ho ly Spirit continues to us its Iruits, aiidoh this': a conversation about the ordirration ofwQ'men :10 .rhe priesthood.

- c' basis-I b elieve Orthodox theology today has to at.tefD;Pt Q ~ r t i c J a t e '-.- He r place in this c o n v t i o n t e q pest by uxtaposing her .'" { ~ ' ' ' ' ' d; .a theological approach to questions that patristic rho.gh t-

return fathers

Documents