I find it interesting that when people attempt to call into question the unity of Orthodox theology both today and in its development over time, they appeal, in an effort to discredit so-called Neo-Palamite [i.e. historic Orthodox] theology, rather than to Orthodox Saints and their contemporary successors, to academics who are more famous for being philosophical figures than for being holy men and women of prayer. A while back I read an article, for example, which pointed to philosophical figures of the Russian Renaissance like Berdyaev and Bulgakov, contrasting them with the Neo-Patristic or Paris School of theology consisting of Lossky, Florovsky, Meyendorff, etc., who came a few decades later. According to this article, Neo-Palamism is only the lingering influence of these latter figures which has come to dominate (far too strongly, the article asserted) American Orthodox theology, which ultimately will fade away as a new breed of Orthodox scholars like David Bentley Hart (no friend of neo-Palamism) come along. Where people who argue along these lines seem to err, though, is in conceiving of Orthodox theology as something which happens--that is, is formulated, defined, and developed in and represented by--in academia. But in the Orthodox Church we have never looked to theology as primarily an academic discipline to be worked out among the intellectual authorities, but as one with the Tradition of prayer we have received from the Holy Fathers, who we look to as theological authorities rather than to the most educated and erudite scholars (even if many of these Saints, of course, like St. Basil the Great or St. Gregory Palamas, have happened to be brilliant scholars as well). This is why, of course, the three Saints for whom the Orthodox Church maintains a kind of special status with the title of the Theologian are first and foremost masters of mysticism and prayer, and why Evagrius was famously known to have said A theologian is one who prays, and one who prays a theologian. When we look to these people--to the Saints who through their profound holiness were illumined by the Holy Spirit--and to the Tradition they have left us in the Church, we see that they speak with one discernible Voice. Thats how I know that neo-Palamite theology will not change with the coming of people like David Bentley Hart, because while he is a great scholar he is not a Saint and does not speak from their Tradition. As for the Paris School, while they certainly got more right than those of the Russian Renaissance before them and David Bentley Hart after them, ultimately they are not looked to as our authority for theology and they are certainly not the basis for what people like to call Neo-Palamism. The fact is, only years after his death St. Gregory Palamas was clearly and officially canonized as a Saint, just as his teachings were universally received in the Orthodox Church and incorporated into Her liturgical hymns and cycles (hint, once this happens, its fair to call something an official teaching of the Church). All of the Saints from Palamas onward speak approvingly and reverently of both of the man and his theology--including people like like St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, who as a contemporary of nineteenth-century Russian Renaissance figures like Solovyev (who later apostatized--go figure) can serve as an illustrative counterexample in that he was not primarily an academic (although incidentally, he was that as well) but first and foremost a monk interested in prayer who came from a long line of Saints which could be traced back ultimately to Palamas and those of his day. Even today, when we consult the spiritual descendants of the Saints--whether Fr. Seraphim Rose and his monastery in Platina which stands in the tradition of the canonized and universally acknowledged Optina Elders, for example, or the contemporary Elders of Mount Athos (many of whom are actually quite critical of the Paris School!)--we see that they are all in agreement. Those of the Russian Renaissance were in direct rebellion against the Saints of their day--this is why the Russian Orthodox Church officially condemned the teachings of Bulgakov, by the way; further, there is a reason that this coincided with the spiritual decline of Orthodox Russia and the rise of communism following the Bolshevik Revolution--as are people like David Bentley Hart today (even though I think hes brilliant and appreciate much of what hes written, for the record). All of this confusion is misleading and unnecessary, and there is a reason its generated in academic circles among intellectuals rather than in the monasteries among Saints. In the end, one either has to accept the Tradition of the Orthodox Church or reject it.
Posted on: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:24:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015