2.
Theology and
Oekonomia in Western thought
We
examined the roots of Western thought, which are linked to Latin
- to Latin-speaking - theology. Latin-speaking theology made its appearance with the North African
authors. First and foremost was Tertullian,
followed by other, equally predominant ones, such as Cyprian and
later, Augustine. The appearance of western theology is
therefore linked mainly to the appearance of a language - a form of
expression. This form of expression, this language, was not a
simple matter of words; rather, it carried with it an entire
mentality. And we have already pointed out those characteristics.
The first characteristic
is the concern for morality, for the praxis that was linked to
the Roman perception in general, which always judged every single
thing on the basis of its usefulness - mostly on the basis of the
result that its presence will incur - and not like the ancient
Hellenes, who chiefly focused their interest on the principle of
each thing that would explain its existence ontologically. We
mentioned characteristically that the difference between a Roman and
a Hellene - when in the presence of a table - will be for the
Hellene to seek the nature of the item like a scientist (because
science has its beginnings in Hellas), and to discover what makes it
what it is, and not something else. He will pose the ontological
question of "why is it?" or "Why is it not?" and "Why is it this,
instead of something else?" These concerns do not preoccupy the
Roman. (The distinction between Roman and Hellene is mine).
The Roman will pose the question "Of what use is this table?" The
reason/logos of its being is not sought in its nature; it is sought
in its utilization. When we use this table, we can write on
it, or we can combine it with other tables, in order to somehow
organize its existence so that it will incur or render a
certain result. To the Westerner therefore, the result is what
is more important. As well as an overall faith in God. In
Christ, in his entire religious experience, everything in his
thought is linked automatically to usefulness - whether it is the
subjective kind for the individual, or the objective kind, more
broadly, for society.
[RELATIVE
COMMENT BY O.O.D.E.:
We must again make a distinction here, about which
'Roman' we are referring to. The Roman identity - according to fr.
John Romanides - had merged with the Hellenic one. The "Rhomioi"
were nothing more than Hellenic-speaking and Hellenic-mannered
descendants of the Romans. An image that helps to better
understand this is that Romanity had the Roman as its "Father" and
Hellas -the Hellenic civilization- as its "Mother". Thus, the
antithesis that the Reverend John of Pergamon has presented here is
essentially an antithesis between the Latin-speaking (but also
Frank-influenced) 'Roman' and Romanity's 'Roman'. The former is
merely a remnant (in name only) of the actual and dynamically
evolving Roman identity. It is a "back-stepping" towards the
idolatrous Roman identity. Apart from the aforementioned, it
is worth noting that the question of usefulness but also of
practicality has certain positive results in Theology also.
The
«Psychotherapeutic»
nature of Orthodoxy, as stressed by fr. John, was one of the reasons
that the Faith was adopted by the Romans: i.e., precisely because it
also led to the improvement of conditions in society.]
In the
framework of this perception, we have the second element that
characterizes Western thought, and that is the huge emphasis that it
places on institutions. An institution is definitely the
guarantee that one has for the usefulness of a certain object, and
naturally, the notion of institution also embodies the notion of
organization. When this table is placed within a framework
combined with other objects, with another table, or a chair, then an
organized whole is created, and that is the beginning of
institutionalizing - especially when one can extract a useful result
from that whole. An institution therefore acquires central
importance in Western thought. We need to also stress, that because
of his practical placement and his interest in praxis, the
Westerner, with his Roman, western mindset, looks to History as well
as to the developments of History, in order to find the
significance even behind religious experience and faith. History
thus becomes extremely significant. Morality, institution, History,
are the three basic elements that the Roman spirit carries inside
it, from the beginning. It does not have to do with the
Franks; it is far older.
Western thought goes through a critical phase during the 5th
century, precisely when the [OODE Note:
WESTERN] roman empire collapsed; along with it, the [OODE
Note:
WESTERN] roman institutions also collapsed, and naturally,
together with the people's trust in institutions. That was
precise, critical moment that Augustine appeared. And
Augustine made his mark on the course of Western thought, with the
help of neo-Platonism. That is, he proposed that what is of importance is man's about-face, towards his inner self, towards the
underlying self; that is, self-examination, introspect, and
consequently the discovery of one's self, of one's underlying self,
which thereafter leads Western thought to this day to its major
accomplishments, its major characteristics. Psychology -
chiefly with the form it took with in-depth psychology, is
Historically unthinkable without Augustine.
As we said, Augustine is the first in the
West, but also the only one, because in the East there
is no-one like him, who writes Confessions (because he sees the
relationship with God through the prism of personal self-awareness).
Conscience acquires a central significance - the meaning of 'person'
has now become in the West the underlying self, which can think and
has an awareness of others and of the self. Self-awareness now begins,
which develops very quickly, even after the Enlightenment. In
fact, all the in-depth psychology is the fruit of that new trend
that Augustine started, which however also rescued the Westerner
because he hinges on institutions. But
institutions continue to survive - but still as a typical
characteristic of Westerners - except that now, whenever
institutions disillusion them or are depreciated and the people
naturally lose their footing (because all institutions are subject
to deterioration), they have the potential to seek a new form of
institution, a new institution. They create revolutions and
they change institutions. Revolutions are also a characteristic of
Western man. It is characteristic, that revolutions in Europe take
place wherever institutions are unable to survive. For
example, in England there are no revolutions. England has a certain
way of changing its institutions before they deteriorate and she
thus survives - she does not undergo any revolutions.
Revolution is a characteristic of the trust placed in an institution; in
other words, we want to rely on the institution; we aren't satisfied
with this one, so we make another; but we would never consider
abandoning it altogether. Nevertheless, in the West there is
also another outlet - the one provided by Augustine. And that outlet
- of turning towards our inner self, into the dark compartments of
the self, of the underlying element - gave rise to Western thought
to cultivate even greater achievements, which are familiar to us.
And when we say "westerners", let
us not fool ourselves!
They are none other than us! We need only look at our literature,
our poetry, our music: everything is western, because everything is
linked to those achievements that the West has been drawing over the
ages, because of the re-orientation that Augustine gave them.
The topmost of those achievements (apart from
politics, which we said was precisely the changing of forms and
structures and institutions through revolutions) is of course
Romanticism, which is also a major achievement of the West.
Romanticism is that juxtaposing of a subject opposite Nature.
The awareness of a preponderance of the one or the other is of
no importance. Romanticism can produce admiration of the subject - man- and a subjugation, a
depreciation of Nature. All
these things infiltrate the Westerner's blood and theology is also
carried away by them.
Therefore, Romanticism, psychology, mysticism are
the [OODE Note:
WESTERN]
Christian characteristics, which again are linked to a psychological impact, a psychological experience.
Note again that we are Westerners here also to a large degree, because
this suggestion by the subject's emotional experience has infiltrated
our religious experiences. And it has infiltrated mainly in
the form of pietism, which again is the offspring of western
thought, and which pietism -in the form of sentimentality- is the
placing of man's relation to God at the level of the heart, i.e. of
emotion - of the experience in this sense. The experience that
we Orthodox stress so much is also an invention by Westerners. By
studying all Westerners, that is what one can discern, and is
able to see that the experience springs from there and is greatly
linked to pietism. So the issue is what kind of experience we
mean and also what we mean by the term 'experience', in order
to juxtapose the Orthodox perception of 'experience' as compared to
the Western one. Now, this mystical experience is, precisely,
the result of the turnabout to Western thought which Augustine had
introduced. This examination of my own self, the awareness of
experiences and pietism, can take on the form of moralism, to which
the experience and the praxis of the individual is always linked.
What the individual does is what determines everything. That is why
the West eventually took certain dilemmas to a theological level -
why they are perpetually within a theological speculation.
One
dilemma for example would be whether the
experiential
or even the moral experience and reality of mankind or of one person
has an effect on objective reality in religion. For
example, how much unworthiness or moral worthiness or conscientious
application of the minister affects the sacrament - the objective
reality of the sacrament. As we have said, our Church has
already solved this, by placing the principle of 'ex opero operato';
ie., that the sacrament is performed regardless of the worthiness of
the officiator. In spite of this, Western mentality has not
abandoned us entirely, which is why the issue is always raised
inside us, if not in the form of doubt, then certainly in the form
of a question: How is it possible for an unworthy clergyman to
perform sacraments? How can we accept such a thing? Of course
we do reach the point of doubting the sacrament itself, because the
dogma we mentioned hinders us; however, what does preoccupy us, is
precisely the dilemma that perpetually preoccupies Western theology.
And it was Protestantism naturally that posed the dilemma very
acutely, with faith in the form of a prerequisite for ecclesiastic
reality. Faith was always understood in the West in that form of a
personal experience - a personal, conscientious stance.
Consequently, if someone, either for various reasons, or because in
certain circumstances they cannot consciously live their faith, the
question is immediately posed: "What now?" Let's say for
example that we have a Eucharist community, in which everyone is
absentminded at the time, and no-one is praying, no-one has a
conscious stance; absentminded, because as we mentioned, a person
cannot always focus consciously- either because of circumstances,
because the priest is illiterate and everyone is illiterate and are
unaware of what the texts are talking about - then where is the
reality in the sacrament? For a Westerner, this is actually an
immense problem. But why doesn't it constitute a huge problem for an
Easterner? That is one of the questions that has never been
answered. These dilemmas are all based on the dilemma that
Augustine had created, with the intensity that he gave to the
subject, and ever since then, if one wishes to see what is Western
and what is not, they would have to pose all these questions
together. But we should not believe that we Orthodox are rid
of Western influences. When characteristics such as the ones
mentioned acquire with us a sense of criterion, then we most
assuredly are subservient to the Western spirit.
From here on,
we will embark on a more specific application of
these characteristics, in various sectors of theology. These sectors
we can describe, approximately as follows: One is the sector of
Western Theology in the ancient classical sense of the word
pertaining to God. How does the Westerner tend to render the word
pertaining to God, and how does an Easterner? In practice they can't be
told apart - they are blurry. But at any rate, we can say that in
the Hellenic Fathers we do not have a Western spirit. In the
contemporary Orthodox however, I believe we cannot assert this. The
word pertaining to God is one chapter; the word pertaining to Christ
is another chapter, which is closely linked to the word pertaining
to God; in Ecclesiology it is another chapter and of course another
one in morality and in practice, in everyday life.
We shall
begin with a brief examination of the word
pertaining to God. And first of all, the meaning of the term "theology" -
the word pertaining to God - is per se a meaning that can be
utilized in two ways. Naturally, we cannot speak of a word
pertaining to God outside of a revelation by God, which is given to
us 'in Christ'. And when we say 'in Christ' we mean within History,
within the incarnate Logos, the incarnated Son. Consequently, one
could say that the starting point is always the observation of the
acts, the energies of God within History and chiefly the act and
energy of God in History which is the incarnation of the Son.
Thus, theology begins from History. One could say that this
matches the characteristic that we already mentioned, of the western
man, who always looks to History in order to find God, to find the
meaning of all things.
It is
therefore a characteristic of western man, that he gives the
Person of Christ - of the historical Christ - the importance of a
central and a starting place for theology. We should not have
serious objections at this point, but we should observe the subtle
difference that immediately appears when we wish to speak of God
beyond History, beyond the historical Christ. Straight away here we
have the problem that became known during the Patristic era, through
the discernment between theology and
providence (oekonomia).
"Providence" is of course God's making provision with His acts
within History, and especially with the mystery of the Incarnation.
When we say oekonomia (providence), we mean the Son's
providence, to
which the presence of the Holy Spirit is of course also linked.
But all these take place at a Historical level, and History in the
broader sense includes Creation, from the time that the world was
created; ever since the appearance of that "something else" which is
not God, it is from then on that we have
providence. Within
providencewe have Creation, as well as all the beyond-God
occurrences by God. It brings into existence all of Creation, which
has been given one sole purpose by God: to come into communion with
Him - to attain that relationship with God, that will allow the
creature to acquire divine properties, not by its nature, but from
that relationship that it has with God. From the moment that
the purpose God had instilled in His creation was shaken and
disorganized on account of Man's fall, it was from that moment on
that oekonomia (providence) took on a specific form, leading to the
Incarnation, the Sacrifice, the Cross, the Death and the
Resurrection of Christ, the advent of the Holy Spirit and pursuantly
of the Church - through to the End of Time and throughout the entire
course of History, of salvation; this is what we call
"oekonomia"
(providence). We can of course go beyond this
oekonomia and
speak of God, not without any reference to this
oekonomia, but as
something else, which doesn't entail
oekonomia.
In
oekonomia, God manifests Himself to us in a
manner that "imposes" upon God certain restrictions and certain
special relationships with His creations. The
Incarnation itself is one such special relationship. It entails a
self-vacating; in other words, God "suffers" the consequences of
being a creation; the consequences of History that He does not
suffer by nature. He doesn't hunger, He doesn't get tired, He
doesn't thirst, He doesn't die. And yet, in the case of
oekonomia, the word pertaining to God -Theology- contains ideas that
are truly scandalous: God dies, God eats and drinks, God gets weary.
This Theology (that is based on
oekonomia) is obliged to fully cover
the word pertaining to God, within that cadre of historical reality
in which God has inserted Himself - or even before the Incarnation -
given that it is God Who speaks and Man listens and obeys. All
of the Old Testament presents God as speaking, becoming enraged, and
so many other things. Given that God has involved Himself in His
creation in whichever manner, either from a distance or with the
Incarnation, it is necessary for the word pertaining to God to use
these anthropomorphic references and expressions. But, to what
degree is this legitimate and to what point can we take it? Because
the danger here is for theology to end up anthropomorphic and for us
to transpose into the word pertaining to God those categories and
situations that belong to creations.
This danger had been foreseen by Patristic theology
in its Hellenic aspect, and had proceeded to do two things that the
West had never comprehended correctly. The one thing was that
which Dionysios the Areopagite had done, and all that apophatic
tradition. In other words, he wanted that apophatic tradition
to stress that the word pertaining to God that was drawn from
oekonomia (providence) is always defective and cannot be extended
into Theology proper. Of course, what Hellenic Patristic
tradition did before anything else, was to distinguish between
oekonomia (providence) and theology. It made that distinction, and it alone
was a very important thing. But if it were to remain devoid of any
content, it would be meaningless. What was the content that
they gave it? One content is that of apophatism, with which Hellenic
Theology demonstrates the deficiencies and the dangers of the word
pertaining to God, which is based solely upon
oekonomia
(providence). Thus, apophatic theology is not only a challenge
for us to go beyond what the presence of God gives in
oekonomia (providence) and
in Creation, but to actually presuppose that God exists and the word
pertaining to God must take place even before any reference is made
to oekonomia (providence), and independent of oekonomia. In other words, God is
Who He isn't, and that there can be a word pertaining to Him in a
manner that does not include those elements that
oekonomia (providence) gives us
on God.
In Western theology, this negativism - this
apophatic theology - took on the meaning of negative theology.
This is obvious, from the utilization by Dionysios the Areopagite.
His writings were given a central place in Western Theology during
Medieval times. They were translated and developed by the
Scholastics. It was with this dilemma almost - ie, between the
obscure
object, the spirit, on the one hand and objective reality on the
other - that Dionysios the Areopagite was placed in the ranks of the
mystics, in the sense of Western mysticism. And the sense of
Western mysticism includes the characteristic of the unknown - in
the manner that psychology also perceives clearly as obscure - as that
which does not come to light. These are in essence the
Augustinian roots. Thus, we have the appearance of the
apophatic tradition of the Dionysian works as though they were a
mysticism of the unknown, of the obscure, in which we place God and
assert that is where He is - inside that unknown, that obscurity.
That is not what we are talking about. That is not the intention of
the Hellenic Patristic thought. Lossky, with all his polemics
against the West, presented this to us in his most important book,
titled "Mystical Theology". Naturally this sold millions of
copies in the West of the Eastern Church, because they immediately
took it in the sense of mysticism as understood by them.
However we do wonder, because Lossky indeed has information in
there, which allows for such an interpretation of Dionysios. And
those subtle distinctions are those that escape us. Nowadays, 95% of
the Orthodox are influenced by Lossky. I am not indulging in
polemics against Lossky, nor do I share their views on everything
they impute to him. It is that generally speaking, the meaning of
apophatism was wrestled with
and eventually put aside. Behind this misconstrual was hidden a
misunderstanding of Dionysos, which sprang precisely from the
influence of Western mysticism and Western thought.
One more parenthesis. We must eventually embark on an
in-depth study of Slavic theology, in order to see what Slavic
characteristics of Christianity differ to the Greek ones, and
to the [OODE note:
Western] Roman ones. We must not forget -
it is extremely important that we be aware - that catholicity of the
Church is nonexistent, if tomorrow there develops an African
theology - or needs to be developed - with its own particular
characteristics. Each peoples contribute their own way of thinking,
when experiencing and expressing the mystery of God.
Thus,
Lossky
sought to identify apophatism with that unclear - that unknown
element - which nowadays leads many Greeks who, on account of a lack
of intellectual gratifications, see it as: "don't talk about God -
we shouldn't talk - we should keep our mouth shut". Does that
mean all the Fathers who spoke about God were mistaken in doing so?
Or, there is the other, safer argument: "They were Fathers; they
spoke up. Now, we shouldn't." And there are many who use
Lossky for that apophatism, in the sense that: "we do not talk about
God, we do not talk about the meaning of the Trinity, or the Person
of God. All these are an abyss, they are obscure topics."
These are not at all in the spirit of Dionysios, however,
but we do at least enter the Christian mentality precisely through
that window of the obscure compartments of the soul, which Augustine
had inserted in the thought centre. However, this is something
that cannot possibly be conceived by a Hellene, as Kanellopoulos
observes very astutely in the section of his "History of the
European Spirit" that deals with Augustine; a Hellene would hasten
to bring everything to the light; things cannot remain in the dark;
he does not stress this kind of view, or the preoccupation with the
subconscious and conscience - he wants to bring everything out in
the open. Dionysios is naturally not along those lines. But he
is placed there - we place him there - precisely because the
Westerner interprets apophatism as that dark, secret thing - a thing
about which we know nothing. Matters like this need careful
attention. Our theology today has been distorted by things like
these. It is not that unknown thing - that non-essential thing
- that theology desires to lead us to contradict
oekonomia (providence).