When
conversing with a Holy Mountain monk some time ago, we
discussed – among other things – the crisis in theology
observed in our country, on account of the influence on
it by Western scholastic theology as well as by Russian
theology. Without denying this truth, the monk made a
minor correction to my statement, saying that we should
not be speaking of a “crisis in theology”, but rather of
a “crisis in theologians”. Naturally, I had no
intention of disagreeing with him, as this was
essentially what I meant.
It is a
fact, that whenever we speak of Orthodox Theology, we
are implying the faith of the Church in its authentic
expression, the way that the holy Apostles and Fathers
had presented it, following a personal revelation that
each of them had experienced. This theology is
not undergoing any crisis whatsoever. But, when there
are certain “theologians” who speculate on matters of
the faith and admix the
theology of the not misled theologians with the
contemplations of philosophers and philosophizers, then
a problem most certainly exists, and a crisis indeed
becomes evident. Hence,
the
crisis
belongs to the
theologians.
I
have
noticed that in our land (and especially amongst certain
academic teachers) there prevails an impression that
theology has to do with bibliography, footnotes and
references. This approach may of course respond to
scientific-academic requirements, but it does not mean
it is theology. This difference must be pointed out.
Theology is one thing, and the scientific analysis of
theology by theologians is another thing altogether.
One can
observe this in other sciences. For example, an artist
or a sculptor or a poet will create an original and
authentic piece of work and will open new horizons,
carve out a new course and a perspective that may even
define a specific era. Later on, various researchers
will come along, who will attempt to investigate that
specific work of art and the artist, and will try to see
what the background and the starting point of the work
was; they will also try to analyze the facts and the
styles that governed that era etc. Naturally, research
work is also essential; however, it cannot be compared
to the work per se, which is both original and
authentic. For example, the hagiography of
Theophanes the Cretan or
Panselinos is one thing,
whereas the scientific analyses that focus on them are
an entirely different matter. Similarly, the poet
Elytis –per se- is one thing, and the commentator who
analyzes Elytis’ work is another thing altogether.
Elytis was the one awarded the Nobel prize, not his
analyst. There is a vast difference between the two.
* * *
The Church
has bestowed the title of “theologian” to three major
personalities only
: Saint John the
Theologian, Saint Gregory the Theologian and Saint
Simeon the new Theologian. A fourth one was later added
to them: Saint Gregory Palamas.
In the works of these four personages, as also in the
works of other holy Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of
Nyssa, Maximos the Confessor
e.a.), there is an abundance
of rich, living and essential theology, without any
references and footnotes whatsoever.
When I was
a student, I had participated for a while in a
scientific team that was involved in preparing a
critical edition pertaining to the writings of Saint
Gregory Palamas. My job was
to trace the texts by Saint Gregory the Theologian that
were used by Saint Gregory Palamas,
in order to insert them in the critical edition. There
is no way that I can ever embrace the view that because
Saint Gregory Palamas did
not refer to any contemporary scientists of his time (or
even to many Fathers of the Church) and that whenever he
did, he would not designate the reference to their
specific treatise, that this automatically renders him
inferior to certain important academic teachers, who
have learnt to work strictly with bibliography, with
logical documenting and scholastic analysis.
* * *
In our
day, we are in need of a theology that will provide
answers to the many existential problems that preoccupy
modern man; for example pain, death, guilt, the meaning
of life - as well as to the tremendous social problems
that abound - through revelatory experience. We are in
need of a theology of “tenderness”, of immediacy; one
that will fall like a gentle rain on the souls of
mankind and shed its healing balm and consolation, the
way that the writings of Saint Siluan the
Athonite
do. We are in need of a theology that is “poetic”,
without being romantic and sentimental; a theology that
is “intuitive”, without being course and inquiring; a
theology that is authentic and does not need any
footnotes in order to be expressed and to express
itself, as a contemporary thinker had once said.
And of
course,
any
theology that depends solely and exclusively on notes,
references and bibliography must be denounced, because
it misleads people and serves only the interests of
those who express it. An
academic theology such as this must be denounced, when
it overextends itself, beyond its sphere and the purpose
that it serves; when it is projected as a model of
theology by marginalizing the original and authentic
theology of the God-seers
(those who see God).
When
referring to instances of “philosophizing” theologians
of his time (somewhat similar to the academic
theologians of our own time), Basil the Great would say
that “they
technologize, and do not
theologize”.
It is a
shame, when authentic theology is related to scholastic
methodology; in other words, when theology is linked to
technology in that sense. People nowadays are not in
need of a method for studying life, but of a real life.
