I. THE ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

                        A. The need for a different perspective

Western analyses of Orthodoxy, whether Catholic or Protestant, run the risk of misrepresenting its theology. Gerald Bray explains in the following manner the reason for this: `Orthodoxy works within a conceptual framework different from that of the Western tradition... With Eastern Orthodoxy we are in another world, even when the words we use appear to be similar...'[1]

            The difficulty with such an enquiry is real and it comes from a number of factors that differentiate these two areas of Christendom. Among them we could mention:

a. the separated historical, political and religious development of the Western and Eastern parts of the Roman Empire, especially after the year 500 - the development of the Roman-Catholic institution, the Reformation , the Enlightenment and Capitalism in the West; the Byzantine state, the iconoclastic and hesychastic debates, the fall of Constantinople under the Turks and Communism in the East;

b. the almost opposite approaches to life and reality of the populations in those areas, caused partly by their ethnic and temperamental differences - juridical and practical in the Latin West, relational and contemplative in the Byzantine East;

c. the different institutional structures of the Church - imperial and strictly hierarchical in the West; national and concilliar (synodal) in the East.

                        B. The distinctives of Orthodoxy

The Romanian theologian Fr. Ion Bria, in his book Destinul Ortodoxiei [The Destiny of Orthodoxy][2] distinguishes the following major emphases of Orthodoxy:

            1. ‘Orthodoxy is before anything else a world of theology, of a theology that tries to protect the impenetrable mystery of the Word of God and not to verbalize and systematize faith.’[3] It is for this reason that Orthodoxy has never developed a theological system that can be compared with those of Aquinas, Calvin and the modern Western theologians. This is a factor that makes quite difficult its investigation for a researcher trained to use logic and critical methods in theology.

            Bria continues, ‘theology begins with the Word of God... but does not elaborate, does not reduce or does not exhaust the revelation of this Word; it only makes transparent the richness of the divine self-disclosure’.[4] Orthodox theologians prefer the language of symbols and mystery to the conceptual approach, although they do not deny the usefulness of the later. In fact they see the cataphatic (conceptual or theological) approach not as opposed, but as fulfilled and transcended in the apophatic (mystical or negative) approach. In the words of Lossky, `there is, therefore, no Christian mysticism without theology; but, above all, there is no theology without mysticism'.[5]

            The reason for the first part of Lossky's statement is that without theology` apophaticism has no content and genuine experiences of the transcendent cannot be distinguished from false ones. The second part of the statement is based on the assumption that verbal and conceptual pursuits cannot exhaust the "wholly Other" God of Christianity. It is very relevant in this respect the comment made by the same author, that the Eastern Church has reserved the title "theologian" to only three really mystical sacred writers: St. John the Evangelist, St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Symeon the New Theologian.

            According to Orthodox thinking the mystical approach to theology could offer protection against an exaggerated rationalism in one's theological pursuit as well as guard the theologian from the natural tendency of reducing the transcendence of God to a human system. `For the Truth is not an idea, but a person, even the Incarnate Lord.'[6]

            2. Another distinctive aspect that Bria mentions centers around the Orthodox emphasis on sacraments and worship: the Orthodox Church is highly sacramental and of all the functions of the Church, worship is by far the most prominent. The Orthodox term for sacrament is "mystery", which is understood as `the personal appropriation of the life of God'.[7] In the opinion of Georges Florovsky, `only in the sacraments does the Christian Community pass beyond the purely human measure and become the Church'.[8]

            Among the implications of the Orthodox sacramentalism we can mention the tendency of institutionalising the ministry of the Holy Spirit (because all exercise of the gifts of the Spirit is controlled by and most of the times reserved to professional clergy) and the neglect of other aspects of the Church life, like the ministry of the Word, the life in community, and the involvement in missions (because of the exaggerated importance given to liturgy in relation to the other aspects).[9]

            Lex orandi is a common ground for establishing dogmatic orthodoxy both for the Church Fathers and the modern Orthodox theologians.[10] The emphasis on what Bria calls "a doxological dogmatic" protects theology from becoming theoretical and rationalistic, giving it an existential character. From an Orthodox perspective theology is not called to deal exclusively with abstract ideas, but also with persons and the real world; it has to be existential. It calls man to a concrete experience with Christ through the sacraments, in the context of liturgy. `For Christ is not a text but a living Person, and He abides in his Body, the Church.'[11] It is not surprising then that prominent modern Orthodox theologians like Berdiaev, Bulgakov and Staniloae, have been attracted and influenced by the existentialist philosophy.

            3. The next distinctive presented in the above mentioned study is the Orthodox ecclesiological perspective. Fr. Georges Florovsky, describes the Orthodox perception of the Church in the following words: `The Church is Christ's work on earth; it is the image and the abode of His blessed Presence in the world.'[12] In a different context, he talks about the difficulty of giving a definition of the Church. To this problem he offers a solution that reflects in a relevant way the Orthodox mind:

In our time, it seems, one has to get beyond the modern theological disputes, to regain a wider historical perspective, to recover the true "catholic mind", which would embrace the whole of the historical experience of the Church in its pilgrimage through the ages. One has to return from the school-room to the worshipping Church and perhaps to change the school-dialect of theology for the pictorial and metaphorical language of Scripture. The very nature of the Church can be rather depicted and described than properly defined. And surely this can be done only from within the Church.[13]

            The Orthodox, then, perceive the Church not so much as an institution (as in Roman-Catholicism) or as a sociological reality (as in Protestantism), but as the mystical Body of Christ, through which the whole creation is progressively sanctified as a result of the Incarnation of the Son of God. And since it is a body, no isolation of the members is acceptable.

            The Orthodox Church is very critical of Western individualism, in opposition to which it tries to emphasize the importance of community, following the old Latin adagio which says, unus Christianus - nullus Christianus. The technical term used to describe the Orthodox understanding of community is that of sobornost or sobornicity, coined by the Russian theologian Alexei Khomiakov (1804-1860). In Western terms it could be described as "individual diversity in free unity".[14]

            It is true that many times in practice this is manifested by a tendency towards collectivism and anarchy. At the same time, the Orthodox themselves have not yet worked out the practical implications of this issue. It would appear that the sacramental character of the Orthodox Church (and its subsequent institutional tendency) can stand often in opposition to the concrete implication of the believers in the Christian community.

            Authority in the Church is held not by an individual person (like the Pope, in the Roman-Catholic Church), but by the synod of the bishops. Traditionally the bishop in the capital city, at the national level, and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, at the international level, preside over the synod, but they have no ontological superiority over the other bishops. In the final analysis authority resides in the Church as a whole, since the synods and even the ecumenical councils cannot impose their decisions on the community of believers. They are called to act as representatives of the local churches, who are called to validate (or invalidate) the synodal formulations.

            The catholic nature of the Church is kept alive on the objective side by the apostolic succession and on the subjective side by loyalty to the apostolic tradition.[15]

            Ecclesiology is intimately connected with another central concern in Orthodox theology, the doctrine of the Trinity, for the Church is seen as reproducing on a human and historical plane the communion in the Holy Trinity. The relevance of this perspective on the contemporary ecclesiological debates needs special attention in future theological research.

            4. The final distinctive element mentioned by Ion Bria is Orthodox spirituality, more precisely asceticism. The Orthodox understanding of spirituality was influenced to a large extent by the asceticism of the Desert Fathers. This is one of the reasons why monastic institutions have always played such an important role in Orthodoxy. At the same time, this does not mean that the way of union with God cannot be pursued outside the cloister.

            A strong impulse on monastic renewal, but also on lay spirituality, came in the nineteenth century from a Russian monk who lived most of his life on Romanian territory, called Paissy Velichkovsky, who translated an old collection of mystic writings called Philokalia. This is probably at the present time the most influential body of writings in contemporary Orthodox spirituality.

            Central to the Orthodox spirituality is the concept of theosis, by which is meant the progressive human participation in the divine life, which is the goal of salvation. This is realized through a synergy of grace - the uncreated divine energies and the voluntary participation of the human person. Theosis is not Pelagianism: grace is not a divine reward for the merits of the human will. Rather, it involves a free cooperation of two wills, the divine and the human. Asceticism – the voluntary opposition to passions, the mortification of sin and the renunciation to the "world" – is the negative of the human contribution in this process and without it theosis is not possible. The positive form in which man participates in the process is prayer and contemplation.

            Hesychasm, as a specific form of Orthodox spirituality, consists in a very elaborated technique of prayer. It contains both physical and spiritual elements, the physical side - a certain breathing style, the bodily position in prayer, the rhythm of prayer – having the purpose of facilitation concentration on the meaning of the very simple words of what is called "the prayer of Jesus" – "Lord,  Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner".[16]

            According to the hesychasts, the use of this method of prayer involves three stages. The first is the oral stage, the constant repetition of the words of "the prayer of Jesus". This demands discipline, effort, and concentration. The second is the mental or psychic stage, when the mind concentrates in meditation on the name of Jesus. The final stage is when `the prayer of Jesus is said as of itself, in the heart, constantly and without any effort...'[17] It is at this stage that the ascetics report to have seen the "uncreated light of God" around which the hesychastic debate had taken place. The ascent of the human soul towards perfect union with God is seen in Orthodoxy as having to be achieved simultaneously on two levels, that of action (praxis) and that of contemplation (theoria). The two cannot be separated; one is not possible without the other.[18]

                        C. Preservation and renewal in Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy is rightly considered a very conservative part of the Christian body. It certainly refuses any aggiornamento form of policy and still celebrates faithfully the liturgical structure established by John Chrysostom and Basil the Great. At the same time, it also denies the legitimacy of any "theology of repetition", which would be nothing else than a form of scholasticism. Theology is not an exercise of faithful imitation of the Apostles and of the Fathers, but a creative translation and application of their insights, and a search for new insights in response to the new circumstances.

            Orthodox theology is rooted in a solid belief in revelation. Theology is perceived as a human response to God, and in this sense it can be seen as a "theology from below", but it is possible only as a result of revelation.[19]

            Orthodoxy has a structural mistrust in a theology for its own sake, and consequently pure academic theology, disconnected from worship and communion has always been suspect. Florovsky justifies the Orthodox position as such: `"Theology" is not an end in itself. It is always but a way. Theology, and even the "dogmas", present no more than an "intellectual contour" of the revealed truth, and a "noetic" testimony to it. Only in the fact of faith is this "contour" filled with content.'[20]

            Tradition, the living context in which theology is articulated, is not perceived by the Orthodox Church as a strait-jacket. It is a necessary presupposition, and a protection against arbitrariness. In fact no scholarly work is possible without presuppositions: to imagine that a study can be pursued starting from tabula rasa is dangerous and false. In fact, `the presence of tradition does not hinder the exegete any more than gravity hampers the racer. It only keeps him on the ground'.[21]

            Can we really talk about dogmatic development in the Orthodox frame of mind? The answer is a paradoxical "yes and no". The historical development of dogma is an obvious fact. `But on the other hand', explains fr. Sergius Bulgakov, `the Holy Spirit, Who resides in the Church and the eternal which He gives us, knows neither diminution nor augmentation, and thus the Church is always identical with itself, without evolutional change.'[22]             The contradiction is only apparent. The explanation comes from the complex nature of the Church. In her divine side, as the mystical Body of Christ, the substance of the Church is unchangeable and identical with itself. In her human aspect, the Church evolves (or recedes) and develops in response to the historical conditions she is confronted with.

            The evolution of dogmas reflects the characteristics of the epochs in which they are formulated. Thus, explains fr. Bulgakov, the Christological formulations of the ecumenical Councils reflect the Greek thinking; they are `translations of the fundamental truth of the Church into the Hellenistic tongue (sic!)', while the contemporary ecclesiologic debates reflect more the Latin spirit and the influence of modern times and philosophy. This is what the author calls the "pragmatic" character of the development of dogmas.[23]

            This being said, we need to mention that, because of its overconcentration on tradition, Orthodoxy had been generally slow to get involved in disciplines such as Biblical studies (seen more or less as a Protestant discipline) or in shaping the cultural environment (perceived to a certain extent as a Catholic interest).

            However, the twentieth century has seen a revolutionary change in this respect. The Russian Orthodox theologians who have done theology in the West after the Russian revolution have been confronted with the need to shape their theology in such a way as to make it relevant for the Western world in which they lived. In turn, Western theologians began to understand that Orthodoxy has something valuable to offer. At the same time, the Orthodox theologians have been themselves influenced by the concerns of Western theology, so that both traditions have been enriched.

            We believe that this process is only in its early stage. The constant opening of orthodoxy towards new areas of research (Biblical criticism, feminist and ecological matters, the theology of the poor) and the increasing intensity of the ecumenical dialogue will bring development and maturity to the Church of Jesus Christ.