a.
Forms and character of Dogmatics
Dogmatics – as
a particular ‘branch’ and ‘lesson’ of Theology – appeared in
the West for the first time and was introduced in the
Orthodox Theological Schools during later times. A major
characteristic of this branch, as compared to other lessons
of Theology, is its systematic character. While other
branches of Theology are preoccupied with the dogmatic
belief of the Church, Dogmatics approaches this faith by
theme, and systematically expounds it.
The Church’s
systematic preoccupation with the faith appears during the
patristic period for the first time, especially with Origen
(his work “On Principles”), and in a strictly organized way
with Saint John the Damascene (Exposition of the Orthodox
Faith). Ever since that time, this subject has continued to
develop in the West during Medieval times (Thomas Aquinatus,
SUMMA) and during the post-Reform period, with the
blossoming of Confessional Theology, in which Orthodoxy
(wrongly) participated (Mogila Confession, Cyril Lucareus,
Dositheos etc). In later times (after Eugene Vulgaris), this
phenomenon blossomed in the 19th century (Athanasios
Parios “Epitome” 1806. Moschopoulos “Epitome of dogmatic and
ethical theology”, 1851. Especially among the Russians, we
note the Metropolitan Anthony, Makarios of Moscow – both
widely acknowledged).
In the 20th
century, Z. Rossis is in the lead in Greece, with Ch.
Androutsos as the central person; I. Karmiris and P.
Trembelas follow, basically correcting Androutsos but still
maintaining the same method and division. This branch was
successfully cultivated in the Theological School of Chalki,
by the Metropolitan of Myra, Chrysostom Constantinides. A
new boost to Dogmatics was given by John Romanides, with his
persistence that the character of the dogma entails the
experience of it, and also his search for the patristic
roots of the dogmas, as opposed to Western Theology.
However,
systematic preoccupation is not the only form of dogmatic
theology. This species didn’t exist in the Bible or in the
Fathers of the first century; instead, a circumstantial
dogmatic theology prevailed, in the following forms:
(É)
Adorational and mostly Eucharist:
Christological
hymns in the New Testament, which Paul discovered in the
first communities (i.e., Philippians 2). These comprise
theological-dogmatic elements for his entire line of
thought. The same applies with the literary content of
John’s Gospel (John’s Gospel is considered by many as a
Eucharist-liturgical text; if not entirely, then at least in
its basic core. As for the Gospel’s prologue, it most
probably comprises liturgical material that John found to be
used in worship). Peter’s literary work also: (Peter’s
Epistle A is quite possibly a baptismal Liturgy), etc. The
same applies to the Eucharist references of the first
centuries, which comprise forms of prophetic-charismatic
theology by the bishops that headed the Eucharist
congregations (who –by the way- were initially free to
improvise, as testified in Justin, the Teaching, etc.)
(ÉÉ)
Baptismal
The baptismal
form, along with the catechist preparation that preceded it.
This is also the chief source of Symbolic Theology
(i.e., the Symbols of Faith). All Symbols were Baptismal and
they remained thus during the first centuries. For example,
the 1st Ecumenical Council (Synod) uses as the
basis of its Creed the baptismal symbols of the local
Churches.
(ÉÉÉ)
Anti-heretic
This form
boosted the development and expansion of the initial
baptismal symbols to a broader range of symbols, in order to
confront the dangers of heresies (i.e. Gnosticism, Arianism,
etc.). In this context, Patristic Theology (Irenaeus,
Athanasios, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor etc.)
attained special importance and evolved as opposition, and
were not intended as a positive exhibition of faith.
(ÉV)
Synodic
and especially
the Ecumenical Councils (Synods), which originated from a
combination of anti-heretic theology (=the exclusion of
heresies), and the baptismal-symbolic theology. Thus, the
terms and the symbols of the Synods -as well as many of
their Canons- likewise comprise fundamental forms of
dogmatic theology.
(V)
Empirical
This is a form
of theology that originated in the ascetic (mainly)
experience of the Fathers, which is of special significance
to the Orthodox. Here, the maxims of the desert Fathers, the
works of Saint John of the Ladder, Maximus the Confessor,
Simeon the Young Theologian, the Esychasts and especially
Gregory Palamas, all express dogmatic theology through
ascetic experience.
Because of all
these elements, Dogmatics is basically an experience, an
empirical issue, and not a matter of intellectual perception
or the presentation of logical proposals. It is not a matter
of approving and confessing truths that are merely directed
at one’s mind and logic, but are empirically experienced
relations between man and God.
From this last
point it can be surmised that the meaning of empirical
experience should not be understood as reverential (=a
psychological experience of the person), or as ethical (=a
specific behavior of the person - certain actions of his);
it should be understood existentially, in the broader sense
of the term, which relates to ontology. In other
words, Dogmatics involves issues that relate to the very being of a person (=to exist or not to exist), and such
issues are –for example- the naught (“non-being”)
(=creation), life and death as terminal points
of existence, the created and the uncreated as
an issue of freedom (of being), the person and love as the borderline distinctions between man and
animal (=the moment during which man is either elevated as a
man, or falls), in other words, the problem of evil
and sin – and generally everything that
touches on fundamental and ontological
matters, and not merely on matters of life improvement
(i.e., the organizing of social life in a more
productive way etc.. Certain theologians preoccupy
themselves mainly with this, in the West).
A result of all
these positions is that Dogmatics always pertains to vital issues, of
salvific significance; the
Church always dogmatizes in order to save, and not in order
to enrich our knowledge of God, the world etc.. Each dogma
of the Church and each synodical dogmatic decision always
pertains to a specific problem of salvation; this means that
our entire relationship with God and the world changes in a
dangerous way if a certain dogma is not accepted, or, in the
opposite case, it will be formulated in a salvific
way for us and the world, if the dogma becomes accepted.
Consequently, in Dogmatics we must always seek the
salvific significance of the dogmas and not just present
them dryly, like logical “formulas”. This is what we mean by
existential comprehension of the dogma or empirical theology
in its true sense.
Thus, Dogmatics
has to always strive to interpret the dogmas, and not
preserve them or present them as expressed in their original
form. This subject is huge and extremely sensitive, and
needs to be analyzed.
b.
Dogmatics as Hermeneutics (Interpretation)
1.
The problem of hermeneutics (interpretation) is of
timely importance, not only for the dogmas, but for the Holy
Bible itself. I would say that hermeneutics itself is
essentially the problem. Just as the Bible is a dead letter
when not interpreted, thus the dogmas become fossilized and
museum items – archaeological objects – which we simply
preserve and describe if we don’t proceed to interpret them.
One could say that the dogmas are essentially the
interpretation of the Bible.
2.
The interpretation of the dogmas or the Bible involves two
limbs:
a.
The attempt to comprehend faithfully (not
anachronistically – which is a difficult thing, as it needs
good historians) the historical reality, in the
framework of which the dogma (or the Scripture) was
expressed. This involves the following questions:
É.
What kind of problems did the Church have to confront
during that historical period?
ÉÉ.
What means did it resort to, to solve these problems
? In other words:
Á.
What kind of written and verbal tradition did the Church
have at its disposal?
(Holy Bible,
Tradition etc.)?
(Every Synod
would always take into account any previous tradition).
Â.
What kind of vocabulary and meanings did the
cultural environment of that era have at its disposal? (for
example, the 4th century uses the word
“homoousios” –of the same essence- which the New Testament
doesn’t have, while the 14th century includes
other meanings etc.)
C.
What kind of experiences (worship, ascetic living
etc.) did it have? (for example, martyrdom in the New
Testament, the icons in the 7th Ecumenical
Council/synod, Esychasm, etc.)
All of the
above must be taken into account, in order to form an idea
of the historical environment. Without an accurate
historical basis, every interpretation would be a risky one.
The interpretation of the Bible is not possible, unless
there is previously an accurate and subjective (as much as
possible) research into the historical background, as with
the dogmas. We need to see which problems led to the
drafting of a dogma; what kind of literary and philosophical
material the Fathers utilized, and from what experience
(worship, ascetic etc.) the formulation of the dogma sprang.
An able dogmatist must also be an able historian.
b.
The attempt to locate and to define contemporary problems
that demand evaluation, for example:
É.
Possible new heresies or new, agonizing questions of
mankind, always of a fundamental character (nowadays the
so-called Jehovah’s Witnesses etc.; also technology, ecology
etc.)
ÉÉ.
The vocabulary and the categorizing of that time (we saw how
the Fathers were also contemporaries of their time, yet
without remaining fixed to the letter of the New Testament –
see reference on ‘homoousios’)
ÉÉÉ.
The adorational and ascetic lifestyle of the Church (which
cannot essentially differ from the old one, but is possible
for it to have varying forms and emphasis, for example
martyrdom, mental prayer in the specific Hesychastic
form, the influence of monkhood on the ‘secular’ services of
the Church – Hours, etc. – and the gradual disengagement
from it - albeit incomplete and inconsistent, as observed
for example in our days. All these are indications of a shift in emphasis in the adorational and ascetic
experience, which cannot but affect the interpretation of a
dogma.
In order to
provide a good interpretation, the dogmatician must not only
be a good historian, but a good philosopher as well
(with philosophical thought and a knowledge of contemporary
philosophy), and he must also have a poemantic
disposition (love towards mankind, leaning over their
problems etc.). He is also obliged to be familiar with the
liturgical experience and the life of the Church and
its Canonic structure, because these elements also
express the dogmatic faith of the Church. (Of course
all of the above cannot be concentrated in one person in a
unique way - in other words, a unique researcher of all the
above – but he must, if he desires to be a good dogmatician,
be kept informed of the latest positions of the
specialists in those individual areas).
c.
The Dogmatics method
As you can see,
Dogmatics has a broad spectrum of research and presupposes a
manifold knowledge as well as sensitivity and
creative thought. It is for this reason, that the
Dogmatics method must include:
A.
A very general plan or structure, which would be the
Symbol of Faith (Creed) as it had always prevailed in
Baptismal and Eucharist worship. The reason this structure
is recommended, is that it was basically upheld during the
Patristic era, and also, because it is linked to the very
structure of relations that God – through Christ and in the
Holy Spirit – had provided for our salvation. You must
observe here that, when the subdivision by theoretical
material of topics such as Triadology, Christology,
Salvation, Sacraments, eschatological, etc. is not directly
linked to the structure of the Symbol of Faith (Creed), it
becomes dangerous. This was developed in the West and was
copied by the Orthodox, with the Russians and Androutsos at
the lead.
Â.
This plan has to be very general, so that it may accommodate the various components. For example, in the
sector on the Holy Trinity, reference can be made to the
Church and vice versa. Or, on the Sacraments, to End Times
etc.. In this way, Scholastic Dogmatics that came
from the West is avoided. However, analogies must always be
maintained, as we shall see in the respective chapters.
C.
Verification and a faithful presentation of the significance
of dogmas in their era are imperative, i.e.: What
kind of problems did they have in mind, and what means
(literary-philosophical) did they use, to confront those
problems? In other words, Orthodox Dogmatics must always
contain an element of history; if it lacks a solid dogmatic
history, then it cannot become part of Orthodox Dogmatics.
D.
Attempts should be made to interpret each dogma, with
the following as guides:
É.
By linking it to the adorational and ascetic experience of
the Church (e.g., Christ, as the Son of God: how He is
worshipped and how He is experienced within the Church?).
ÉÉ.
By linking it to mankind’s most fundamental existential
problems during each era, such as: the quest for
freedom, love, the transcendence of death etc. (example: the
significance of faith in a Trinitarian God in each of
these cases).
ÉÉÉ.
By linking it to mankind’s current problems. This is
mainly the field of Ethical Poemantics, but it should be
prepared –at least with cues- by dogmatic theologians. (for
instance, current day social problems, issues that are
raised by technology, ecology, etc.)
ÉV.
By linking it to the broader problems of Knowledge nowadays,
as posed by Natural Sciences etc.