Butler University Digital Commons @ Butler University Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS College of Liberal Arts & Sciences 2006 Introduction to the Modern Orthodox Tradition Paul Valliere Butler University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/facsch_papers Part of the Christianity Commons Recommended Citation "Introduction to the Modern Orthodox Tradition." The eT achings of Modern Christianity on Law, Politics, and Human Nature, ed. John Witte Jr. and Frank S. Alexander. 2 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), Vol. 1, pp. 503-532. This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences at Digital Commons @ Butler University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Butler University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Introduction to the Modern Orthodox Tradition PAUL VALLIERE In her study of the Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, Joan Hussey begins with a caveat: "In the present state of our knowledge a book on the Byzantine Church must necessarily be in the nature of an interim report since much pioneer work remains to be done."] The same must be said about the attempt to present the "teachings" of modern Orthodoxy concerning law, society, and politics. While the historical sources for the study of modern Orthodox social ethics stand closer to us in time than those on which Byzantinists must rely, our level of knowledge about the subject is not markedly higher. TI1ere are at least two reasons for this. The first is the catastrophe of the Russian Revolution (1917), which ruined the largest, richest, and best-educated Orthodox church in the world. The destruction wrought by Communism in Russia and elsewhere made civilized discourse on church and society in the Orthodox East extremely difficult for most of the twentieth century. The second is misleading stereotypes of Ortho­ doxy. TI1e perception of Orthodoxy in the West has been deeply affected by a Christian "orientalism" that alternates between a condescending, essentially imperialist view of Orthodoxy as a backward form of Christi­ anity and a romantic view of it as preserving mystical values from which a putatively rationalistic Western Christianity has fallen away.1 Both stereotypes, though opposed, promote the notion that Orthodox theol­ ogy is not fundamentally concerned with law, society, and politics. In fact, Orthodoxy has been wrestling with issues of modern legal, politi­ cal, and social order for almost three hundred years, and a large body of primary source material for the study of the subject is at hand, albeit underexplored. Orthodoxy's meeting with modernity began in Russia during the reign of Peter the Great (1682-1725), and by the late eighteenth century this 2 ~ Introduction to the Modern Orthodox Tradition Introduction to t.he Modern Or encounter was having a significant impact throughout the Orthodox scholarship of an earlier day had to say world. In the nineteenth century, as Russia emerged as one of the most dy­ the patristic connection in modern Or namic cultural centers of world civilization and as smaller Orthodox na­ not just a traditional, factor; it is a Ci tions won their independence from the Ottoman Empire, a broad factor. modern-style discourse about church and society was cultivated through This point bears directly on the re] a number of channels: new educational institutions, arts and letters, secu­ sented in this volume. TIleir collectil lar and theological journalism, scholarship, politics, secular and ecclesias­ from Vladimir Soloviev's first book ( tical courts, and other venues. In short, there is a historical record-the 1874) to Dumitru StaniJoae's magnum annals of what might be called the Orthodox Enlightenment-against ogy, 1978). TIle most important histori which to check our generalizations about the teachings of modern Ortho­ ology in this period was the Russian F doxy on law, society, and politics. Because this record has been so little in­ aftermath. TIle most significant theo vestigated, however, checking it is an arduous procedure. Hence the caveat however, with the rise of the neopatJ about an "interim report." Florovsky and Vladimir Lossky. TIle ke In the following pages, the views of five modern Orthodox thinkers on turn were Florovsky's The Paths of Ru issues of law, society, and politics are presented-Vladimir Soloviev, sian in 1937, and Lossky's The Mystica Nicholas Berdyaev, Vladimir Lossky, Mother Maria Skobtsova, and Du­ published in French in 19444 Florovsk mitru Staniloae. It cannot be stressed strongly enough that all five of religious-philosophical approach to n these thinkers were modern; that is to say, they wrestled with the situa­ those whom he inspired, such as Nic tion of Orthodoxy in the expansive global civilization produced by the Pavel Florensky, and Lev Karsavin. As scientific and political revolutions of the Enlightenment. As Orthodox viev and his heirs were bad expositors 4 thinkers, all five also drew on patristic sources, that is to say, the writings of the heavy dose of nineteenth-cenl of the church fathers. 3 However, it is not always possible to make a neat modern tendencies in their thought. distinction between patristic and modern elements in their thought. TIle church fathers, hence the name neopa; patristic corpus is variegated. Interpreters find different elements of sig­ tieth century, Florovsky and Lossky's nificance in it, depending on the issues they wish to pursue. TIlere is no has dominated the Orthodox theologil reason to suppose that all elements drawn from the patristic tradition by due in no small measure to a brilliant modern Orthodox thinkers will be consistent with each other. On the John Meyendorff' and Bishop Kallistm contrary, one should expect to find differences of opinion, tensions, even polemical spirit of the founders and c contradictions. the neopatristic approach. Modern historical scholarship on patristics is another variable. To their When reading the neopatristic thee credit, modern Orthodox thinkers have always paid close attention to his­ accept their initial assumption at face 1 torical research on the ancient and medieval church. Some, such as Vladi­ to the church fathers while their rivals mir Lossky, were patristic or medieval scholars in their own right. Like all view is to ignore the fact that the father scholarly disciplines, however, patristics evolves. New facts are discov­ loviev was well versed in patristics as il ered, new hypotheses are introduced, old views are revised. As a result, Bulgakov was even better schooled, tho the scholarly consensus keeps shifting. What is deemed patristic at one that he followed carefully. The fact th point in time might be viewed otherwise at a later time; and of course the viewed the fathers in neopatristic term~ later view, too, is susceptible to revision. TIlis is a perfectly natural state of take the patristic heritage seriously, a: affairs, but it is often forgotten by theologians who accuse their predeces­ quently alleged. It is true that Soloviev sors of betraying the church fathers without taking into account what the other intellectual and spiritual influen ) the Modern Orthodox Tradition Introduction Lo the Modern Orthodox Tradition ¢ 3 lcant impact throughout the Orthodox scholarship of an earlier day had to say about those same fathers. In short, ,as Russia emerged as one of the most dy­ the patristic connection in modern Orthodox theology is itself a modern, civilization and as smafler Orthodox na­ not just a traditional, factor; it is a complicating, not just a clarifying, from the Ottoman Empire, a broad factor. lurch and society was cultivated through This point bears directly on the relations between the thinkers pre­ ltional institutions, arts and letters, secu­ sented in this volume. Their collective labors span about a century­ :holarship, politics, secular and ecclesias­ from Vladimir Soloviev's first book (The Crisis of Western Philosophy, n short, there is a historical record-the 1874) to Dumitru SUiniloae's magnum opus (Orthodox Dogmatic Theol­ I the Orthodox Enlightenment-against ogy, 1978). The most important historical event affecting Orthodox the­ ns about the teachings of modern Ortho­ ology in this period was the Russian Revolution of 1917 and its long, sad . Because this record has been so little in­ aftermath. The most significant theological shift occurred a bit later, s an arduous procedure. Hence the caveat however, with the rise of the neopatristic theology of Father Georges Florovsky and Vladimir Lossky. The key books signaling the neopatristic ~ws of five modern Orthodox thinkers on turn were Florovsky's The Paths ofRussian Theology, published in Rus­ itics are presented-Vladimir Soloviev, sian in 1937, and Lossky's The Mystical Theology ofthe Eastern Church, Issky, Mother Maria Skobtsova, and Du­ published in French in 1944.4 Florovsky and Lossky sharply rejected the tressed strongly enough that all five of religious-philosophical approach to theology practiced by Soloviev and it is to say, they wrestled with the situa­ those whom he inspired, such as Nicholas Berdyaev, Sergei Bulgakov, lsive global civilization produced by the Pavel Florensky, and Lev Karsavin. As Florovsky and Lossky saw it, Solo­ ms of the Enlightenment. As Orthodox viev and his heirs were bad expositors of the mind of Orthodoxy because tristic sources, that is to say, the writings of the heavy dose of nineteenth-century German idealism and other " it is not always possible to make a neat modern tendencies in their thought. The antidote was to return to the d modern elements in their thought. The church fathers, hence the name neopatristic. By the middle of the twen­ lterpreters find different elements of sig­ tieth century, Florovsky and Lossky's approach had won the day, and it e issues they wish to pursue.