Many in Western countries are surprised to learn that significant theological work has been done by Russians in the twentieth century. We are so accustomed to thinking of the Germans as the most articulate theologians overseas that we may overlook the very considerable contribution of Russian thinkers.
Theological activity is relatively recent in Russia, having taken its rise during the era of Metropolitan Philaret Drozdov of Moscow (1782–1867). Metropolitan Philaret was active in the formation of the Russian Bible Society early in the last century and is also well known as the author of the Long Catechism of the Russian Church. With him, Russian theology began to flower, and the work was continued in the nineteenth century by such theologians and philosophers of religion as Metropolitan Makarii Bulgakov, Bishop Sylvester, Golubinsky, Khomyakov, and, best known in Western countries, Vladimir Solovyov.
Solovyov died in 1900, but his influence has continued until the present time. Among those greatly influenced by him are the eminent twentieth-century theologians Paul Florensky and Sergei Bulgakov.
The Russian Church, like the rest of the Orthodox communion, claims to be a scriptural church. It is conservative in interpreting Scripture and gives very considerable weight to the exegetical work of the old Church Fathers. John Chrysostom is an often quoted and often appealed to commentator, but the biblical scholarship of Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria also enjoys high repute.
Sergei Bulgakov (1871–1944), surely one of the major systematic theologians of our time, affirms the full authority and supremacy of the Bible as the Word of God. The Word of God is the primary and unique source of Christian doctrine. The Bible has a certain self-validating quality, and has the capacity to confront the individual man with God’s truth. Tradition, of which Orthodox theology makes so much, is, says Bulgakov, based upon Scripture and receives its authenticity from that fact. Tradition supports itself by Scripture; it is an interpretation of Scripture.
Bulgakov points out that Orthodoxy, unlike Rome, tends to keep dogma or defined doctrines to a minimum. The one fundamental Christian dogma is Peter’s confession: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” All other specifically Christian doctrine, says Bulgakov, can be traced back to this. He points out that faith in Christ is also faith in the Trinity, for Christ is sent by the Father and sends the Holy Spirit. Naturally, trinitarian doctrine is incompatible with rationalism; nevertheless, there is no authentic Christian life apart from faith in the Trinity. As to the filioque clause, disputed between East and West, Bulgakov points out that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son.
Man was made in the image of God but has become enslaved to nature and passions through sin. Hence Christ came as our Sin-bearer, to make to the Father a sacrifice of propitiation. But beyond being an act of rescue, the Incarnation was a new creation. Christ deified human nature. Man cannot merit God’s favor, but must receive for himself this immense gift of participation in the new humanity in Christ. Bulgakov teaches a doctrine of free grace.
Although Bulgakov has become known in Western countries mainly for the more speculative elements in his thought, it is important to note the central scriptural themes in so much of his theology. The authority of Scripture as the Word of God, its ability to authenticate itself, the understanding of tradition as an interpretation of Scripture, the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, the assertion of free grace, and the rejection of the doctrine of merit—all these motifs sound familiar to every heir of the Reformation.
The same year in which Bulgakov died (1944) there appeared in Paris the first edition of The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by the Russian-born lay theologian Vladimir Lossky. An English translation of this important book appeared about ten years later. In Lossky, as in Bulgakov, we find a major systematic theologian.
Lossky stresses the transcendence of God, his mysterious unknowability, “the divine darkness.” The negative or apophatic theology looms large in his system. This he bases on the Greek Fathers, and especially on the work of the Pseudo-Dionysius. Lossky’s theology is profoundly trinitarian, though he sees in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the highest point of revelation, an antinomy. Like Bulgakov, Lossky is anti-rationalist.
According to Lossky, God is unknowable in his essence but can be known in his “uncreated energies.” Thus it is that the Holy Trinity can be incommunicable and yet come to dwell within us. The energies, shining forth from the eternal essence, form the basis for the Orthodox doctrine of grace.
This idea of God’s “uncreated energies” corresponds roughly with the notion of God’s attributes in Western theology. The notion that God is in any sense composite is, however, as vigorously resisted in the East as in the West. A key doctrine in Lossky’s theology is the idea of salvation as participation in the Divine Life or in the Divine Energies. This is what he means by “deification” or “partaking of the Divine Nature.” This doctrine, which at first blush may seem puzzling to those who have been conditioned by the Reformation, is broadly equivalent to the evangelical idea of sanctification.
The eschatological note is strong in Lossky, as in so many other recent Russian theologians. He sees the Holy Spirit as “fulfiller,” and the triumph of the Kingdom as plenary fulfillment. The Easter motif is the eschatological theme that is central to Lossky’s vision of the consummation of the age.
A close friend of Bulgakov was Paul Florensky, certainly one of the most colorful figures on the theological scene in our century or any other. Not only a theologian but also an electrical engineer, a physicist, a historian of art, and a poet, Florensky scandalized Soviet scientific meetings by attending them in cassock and priest’s cap. His eminence in the scientific and engineering fields was very considerable, but his individualistic behavior finally provoked the Soviet authorities into putting him into a concentration camp, where he is thought to have died in 1945 or 1946.
Florensky’s major theological work is The Pillar and Ground of Truth, published in Moscow in 1914, and in Berlin about fifteen years later. The book attracted much attention from the first, and many of its bold ideas were considered to be rather para-Orthodox. Florensky’s system of theology is strongly influenced by the thought of Vladimir Solovyov and his mystical idea of total unity. In epistemology, Florensky defends the view of “reasonable intuition.” Faith, however, is essential to his system, and is that which leads us from despair and to Wisdom (Sophia).
Solovyov’s doctrine of Wisdom had much influence upon both Bulgakov and Florensky. St. Paul affirms that the Logos is the Divine Wisdom, and Russian sophiology takes its departure from this. There is a further idea of a “created sophia,” which is similar to the Platonic doctrine of Ideas. Many of the more conservative Orthodox churchmen have expressed misgivings about this sophiology.
Leo Shestov (1866–1938), a native of Kiev, is another significant Russian theological thinker of this period. Shestov is essentially theocentric; his theology, like that of Barth, is anti-rationalistic. Shestov came under the influence of the novelist Dostoyevsky and hence is regarded by some as an existentialist. He is strongly antisecularist and bases his theology—as did the Reformers—on faith and revelation. His major work is Athens and Jerusalem, published in 1938.
A leading figure in the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church in this century, as well as a theologian of no mean ability, was Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsy, who died in exile in 1936. Metropolitan Anthony was a strong monarchist and highly conservative in politics; when the revolution of 1917 came on he was Archbishop of Kiev. Leaving the country with the White Armies, he was active in assembling the emigré monarchist bishops into what is now known as the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (the Church Abroad). This group has always been strongly anti-Communist, and does not recognize the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow. Its headquarters were at first in Yugoslavia and then in Munich, and are now in New York. It has numerous parishes in the United States and maintains an important theological seminary at Jordanville, New York.
Metropolitan Anthony, whose published works run into several volumes in excellent literary Russian, formulates a theological system that can perhaps be called theo-anthropologism. He points out that in scientism there is an implicit religious veneration of the “laws” of nature; in defending theism he also defends the doctrine of the immanence of God in the world. He has an idea of the penetration of God into the world. Likewise he is a personalist, holding that human nature is open and unfinished, so to speak. He makes a distinction between human nature and human personality. As man becomes more mature, he says, he progresses from the category of “I” to the category of “we.” He believes that the overcoming of the alienation of man from man is best achieved in the Church. One of Metropolitan Anthony’s principal works in systematic theology is a collection under the title Moral Aspects of the Main Orthodox Christian Dogmas, an edition of which appeared in Montreal in 1963.
In the second half of the century, two significant theologians of Russian ancestry and education have emerged in the United States: John Meyendorff and Alexander Schmemann. Both are connected with St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Academy in New York, of which Schmemann is dean. Schmemann, who was a student of Bulgakov at the famous St. Sergei’s Theological Institute, is active in ecumenical affairs. His specialty is liturgical theology, which has to do with the meaning of worship. In order to understand this emphasis, we must bear in mind the intensely liturgical character of the Orthodox Church and its mystical-realistic grasp of the significance of worship. The principle lex orandi lex credendi applies in Orthodoxy as in no Western Christian community, possibly excepting Anglicanism.
One of the most important of Schmemann’s theses is that the biblical understanding of time reappears in the worship of the Christian Church. Scripture sees time as always under God’s management and always deriving its meaning from God’s saving acts in history. Time is never “natural” time but always takes its significance from the fact that it is God’s time. Time also looks toward future time, that is, toward the end of time.
Christ has restored fallen creation after sin. The Lord’s Day, therefore, is a memorial of the new creation, just as the Old Testament Sabbath was a memorial of the first creation. Likewise, the Lord’s Day looks forward to the consummation of the age, to the Day of the Lord, which is, in a sense, actualized in it. The Lord’s Supper, or Eucharist, is likewise an actualization of the victory of Christ and an actualization of the New Eon. Schmemann affirms that only cult can manifest the transcendent, though he asserts the priority of faith and doctrine over cult. Schmemann’s theology is scriptural, thus bearing further witness to the biblical orientation of so much in Orthodoxy.
Another important Russian theologian working in the United States, having come to this country some years after the Bolshevik revolution, is George Florovsky. His Ways of Russian Theology is a classic in the field, though unfortunately long out of print. One hopes that this important work will be reprinted and made available to a wider circle of students of Russian theology. Florovsky bases his theology meticulously on the Word of God and the interpretations of the Church Fathers. He rejects the doctrine of total unity as being inconsistent with the biblical doctrine of creation, and likewise rejects the sophiology of Bulgakov and Florensky.
Florovsky sees in modern theology a weapon against godlessness and the rebellion against God so characteristic of our age. He thinks the twentieth century, in Russia and elsewhere, has witnessed the possession of men’s minds by demonic forces, which a return to the disciplines of a sound theology can heal.
Perhaps a word should be said about the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, the only remaining Russian Orthodox theological review published in the Soviet Union. It has appeared monthly for the past twenty-five years, but the fact that no price or subscription rate appears on it suggests that it is not for general sale. Indeed, there is some reason to think that its circulation may be wider outside the country than in it.
Each month the Journal publishes, in addition to church news, several theological articles. These are very often historical, dealing with some Church Father or some theologian of the past. Not infrequently there are articles on biblical themes, always from what would be regarded in the West as a conservative point of view. Occasionally theological articles translated from Western languages appear. Among theologians in the Soviet Union who have published scholarly articles in recent issues of the Journal are Uspensky, Shabatin, Pavlov, Pariisky, and Georgiyevsky. Articles by Russian theologians resident in other countries, including Vladimir Lossky, have appeared also.
Russian theology has affinities with the theology of the Reformation in that it appeals to the sources, to Scripture and the Fathers of the ancient church. We must not forget that one of the great contributions of some of the major Reformers was their reawakening of interest in patristic thought. Calvin in particular was thoroughly conversant with the Church Fathers, Eastern as well as Western, and quoted them frequently. It would not be an exaggeration to say that he was the first scientific patrologist of the post-medieval era. The English Reformers, and particularly Archbishop Cranmer, were patristic scholars and had a good knowledge of the Greek Fathers. This undoubtedly accounts for much of the Greek patristic flavor in so many aspects of the English Reformation and in Anglican attitudes.
The principal roots of Russian theology are likewise to be found in the theology of the Greek Fathers. While the Russian Church seriously claims to be scriptural, its tendency is to read Scripture through the eyes of the old Church Fathers and particularly the Greek Fathers. Its feeling seems to be that the Fathers are the most reliable commentators upon Scripture. But, as we have seen, most of the Reformers likewise regarded the Fathers as authoritative interpreters of the Word of God.
Milton D. Hunnex is professor and head of the department of philosophy at Willamette University, Salem, Oregon. He received the B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of Redlands and the Ph.D. in the Inter-collegiate Program in Graduate Studies, Claremont, California. He is author of “Philosophies and Philosophers.”
