The Audacity and Theological Deviation of Aspiring “Post-Patristic” Theologians

Dr. Demetrios Tselengides

Professor of Theology, University of Thessalonike

[translated from the Greek]

 

 

In order to forestall any possible terminological confusion, I will offer, right from the outset, a necessary elucidation of the newly minted term “post-Patristic.” This new term of art admits of various interpretations. However, the prevailing ones, from a technical standpoint, are, in my opinion, the following two: (1) when the first component of the word [i.e., “post-”] is given a temporal meaning, it refers, in the case under consideration, to the end of the Patristic era; and (2) when the first component of the word is given an evaluative meaning, the composite word “post-Patristic” signifies a relativization, a partial or total impugnment, a revisionist view, or a new interpretation of the theological thought of the Church Fathers, if not an attempt to go beyond it.

Contemporary academic theologians who have taken, indirectly or directly, to defining themselves as “post-Patristic” employ these two senses of the term interchangeably, though they primarily employ the second, which denotes a relativization and, ultimately, a casting off of the Fathers of the Church.

Protestants have, in my opinion, wrought the greatest havoc on the conscience of the Christian theological world at the broader level. This is because they have directly challenged the authority of the Ecumenical Synods of the Church and, in fact, her entire Apostolic and Patristic Tradition. At the same time, they have officially, fundamentally, and habitually rejected the holiness of all those universally acknowledged as Saints, thereby calling into question the experience, informed by the Holy Spirit, of the Church militant on earth.

Correspondingly, ecumenism has had, and continues to have, a most pernicious effect on the dogmatic conscience of the entire Orthodox Church. Ecumenism, today, is a malodorous channel of inter-Christian and interfaith syncretism and, consequently, the official conduit of the most dangerous heresy of all ages, since it contributes decisively to a dulling both of Orthodoxy as the criterion of Christian truth and of our Orthodox self-understanding. Specifically, through its representatives, locally and internationally, it unceasingly, albeit gradually, essays to undermine the conscience of spiritually unsuspecting Orthodox faithful to an ever greater degree. This it achieves, in particular, by relativizing or even denying in practice the authority of the teaching of the Holy Fathers and especially of their collective decisions in the context of the Ecumenical Synods. Behold, as an example, the reckless and persistent violations, for years now, of Canon II of the Quinisext Ecumenical Synod, which expressly prohibits joint prayer with excommunicates and heterodox, with the clear threat of deposition, for clergy, and excommunication, for laity, who violate it. [1]

The movement of would-be “post-Patristic” theologians that has emerged in recent times belongs organically to the foregoing broadly secularized theological milieu, and is, in particular, preeminently at one with the very spirit of ecumenism as we have described it. This movement has assuredly been influenced by Protestantism, something evident chiefly in the intellectualist attitude of “post-Patristic” theologians towards the authority of the theological teaching of the Holy Fathers, which has hitherto been regarded as changeless over time.

In this brief theological appraisal, we will focus principally on the mindset, not on the persons, of the “post-Patristic” theologians, and also on the touchstones of their inchoate theology.

Unfortunately, our dear brethren in Christ, the “post-Patristic” theologians, with the reckless, or rather, audacious formulations of their ideas—which are, one might say, “not according to knowledge” [2]—give the impression, in actuality, of being completely incognizant of what holiness is and, by extension, of the true nature of the life led by the Saints in the Holy Spirit, which, according to the experience of the Church, constitutes the fundamental precondition for theologizing in an Orthodox and unerring manner. To be more precise, they convey the impression, in their writings, of being unaware that impeccable Orthodox theology is spawned, first and foremost, only by those who have cleansed themselves of the impurity of their passions, and primarily by those who have been illumined and deified by the uncreated effulgence of divinizing Grace. The arrogance of post-Patristic theologians in venturing beyond the teaching of the Holy Fathers weakens the certitude that the faithful need to have in the permanent validity of Patristic theology, and at the same time illicitly and dishonestly introduces a Protestant mode of theological speculation. [3] Moreover, in so doing, they in reality “move the boundaries which our Fathers set.” [4] Then again, it is a crude violation both of Patristic doctrine and of the Divinely inspired teaching of Holy Scripture. [5]

On the basis of the foregoing (and thereon alone), we can offer rigorous support for our thesis that the would-be “post-Patristic” theologians are manifestly lacking the requisite qualities for theologizing in a Patristic spirit. For in truth, how could they maintain that they have these qualities when they brazenly advocate the idea of going beyond the Fathers of the Church, or when they attempt to introduce into the theological thought of the Church a westernized brand of theological and epistemological speculation based on theological conjecture, clad in academic armor. Besides, this very arrogance leads to a betrayal of the charismatic presence of the Holy Spirit, which guarantees the authenticity of Orthodox theology.

The scientific and academic principles that the “post-Patristic” theologians adduce as evidence of their objectivity do not necessarily coincide with the ecclesiastical criteria for theologizing in an Orthodox and unerring manner, especially when these criteria are employed without qualification. Orthodox ecclesiastical theology operates with principles that are clearly and chiefly spiritual. The preeminent and principal criterion of the unerring nature of the Church’s theology is the sanctity of the God-bearing Fathers, who articulated this theology.

The gross nescience and resultant arrogance of the “post-Patristic” theologians, who endeavor, in a wholly anserine fashion, to replace the Patristic theology of the Orthodox Church, which they find rather embarrassing, with their up-to-date “scientific” theology, is profoundly distressing. By virtue of this attitude they plainly show that they do not know, in reality, that the Fathers are in reality God-bearing Saints of the Church. That of which they are clearly ignorant, however, is that the holiness of the Saints and the holiness of God Himself are one and the same, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa. [6] That is to say, the holiness of the Saints has an ontological character and is an uncreated attribute of God. Participating therein directly and personally, and under preconditions clearly set by the Church, the believer becomes “in all consciousness” a partaker of the holiness of God Himself. It is, therefore, obvious that the holiness of the Holy Fathers is uncreated in nature.

The great Fathers of the Church gave unerring expression to the Apostolic Tradition in their own eras, but only because they had already been living this Tradition in a Hesychastic, ascetical, and—preeminently—Mysteriological (Sacramental) manner. St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Basil the Great, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Symeon the New Theologian, and St. Gregory Palamas—to dwell only on these Fathers by way of example—made the Apostolic and Patristic Tradition relevant, putting forth in erudite theological language precisely what the other Holy Fathers, as well as charismatic, albeit less educated, individuals, such as the simple God-bearing faithful of their times, had experienced at an uncreated level and “in all consciousness.”

It is the charismatic experience of God that creates the pristine theology of the Church, regardless of whether it is expressed in simple or in sophisticated and scholarly terms. This theology constitutes a created expression and interpretation of the living and uncreated revelation of God amid the concrete historical reality of the life led by its deified exponents. “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit,” [7] as the leader of the eyewitnesses of the Divine majesty assures us. [8]

Let us return, however, to the criteria for theologizing. Scientific, academic criteria belong to the created realm. For this reason, apart from the most sure criterion of uncreated holiness, the only guaranty of correct, Orthodox, genuinely scientific theology to be sought by anyone, including academic theologians bereft of holiness, is a humble attitude. Such an outlook, maintained and expressed by the Church in the methodology that she has applied throughout the centuries, is encapsulated in the well- known Patristic formula: “Following the Holy Fathers.” [9] This humble attitude, moreover, which ensured their sanctity, was upheld by all of the God-bearing Fathers who took part in the Ecumenical Synods, wherein the theology of the Church was infallibly set forth. Theological conjecture, which the “post-Patristic” theologians love to invoke, and concomitant theological speculation, are not proper to Orthodox ecclesiastical theology, but to heterodox and heretical theology, which, as aptly characterized by the God-bearing Fathers, is “wordplay” rather than theology (θεολογία). [10] Noteworthy, in connection with the case at  hand, is the apt observation of St. John of Sinai (of the Ladder) that “He who does not know God [that is, experientially], merely speculates.” [11] St. Gregory Palamas, too, accuses the Latin-minded Barlaamites of engaging in unspiritual human conjecture in their theology, asserting contrariwise that “we are enriched in our confession of the Faith by following not conjectures, but God-inspired utterances.” [12] When holiness, or even the Orthodox theological methodology of “following the Holy Fathers,” is ignored or set aside, then there is no avoiding “free” theological conjecture and theological speculation. This, however, leads in essence to a “neo-Barlaamite” theology, which is anthropocentric and employs autonomous reason as its criterion. That is to say, just as Barlaam and his adherents doubted the uncreated nature of the Divine Light and Divine Grace, so also the “post-Patristic” theologians in our day fail, in practice, to acknowledge the uncreated and, therefore, abiding nature of the holiness and the teaching of the God-bearing Fathers, whom they claim to replace as teachers by producing what is, in their opinion, an original theology. This is not simply an outward warfare against the Fathers, but is, essentially, warfare against God, since what makes the Fathers of the Church truly Fathers is their uncreated holiness, which these modem theologians indirectly, though fundamentally, set aside and abrogate through all of the innovations spawned by their “post-Patristic” theology.

“Post-Patristic” theology, according to the aforementioned criteria of the Church, is proof of an arrogant mind. For this reason, it is impossible for the Church to accord it any legitimacy. The Church’s theology is humble and always “follows the Holy Fathers.” This does not mean that the Church’s theology is devoid of originality, dynamism, a spirit of renewal, or relevance. On the contrary, it possesses all of the foregoing characteristics, since it is an expression of the living presence of the Holy Spirit in one who theologizes in this spirit. The Fathers of the Church expressed their experience of Pentecost at a personal level, though always, in practical terms, “following,” and in conformity with, the God-bearing Fathers who preceded them. [13]

Orthodox academic theology is, of course, not called upon to replace Patristic, charismatic theology, nor is it, however, justified in putting forth any other theology than the authentic theology of the Church. Its task is to approach, to investigate, and to present with rigor the content of the pristine theology of the Church: to discern and communicate the criteria of true theology. It is in this way that a convergence of Patristic charismatic theology and academic theology is achieved and reinforced. Progress is made in this area when the exponents of academic theology are not personally destitute of the essential preconditions for spiritual life and when they are not without experience of the realities of Church life.

Scientific, academic theology, when it does not have the foregoing characteristics, when it is not articulated in terms that reflect the experience of the Church, is conjectural theology and is spiritually impoverished. It approaches the reality of the world and life only at a created level, expressing matters defectively, in ideal instances, and unfortunately, in certain instances, erroneously or even heretically.

I am of the opinion that, if the “post-Patristic” theologians held to the same spiritual presuppositions as the Fathers, they would be endeavoring humbly and quietly to teach aright the truth for their generation, without condescending, if not equivocating references to the Fathers. And if they did justice to them, they would assuredly be exponents of the living and sacred Tradition of the Church. But this would mean, inevitably, that whatever they said would not be in opposition to what has been said by the Holy Fathers over the centuries and, in particular, that they would not be at odds, in their pronouncements, with the Ecumenical Synods. Thus, all of this pother over “post-Patristic” theology would be superfluous. However, the would-be “post-Patristic” theologians know fully well that the teaching of the Holy Fathers sets clear boundaries, which either do not suit them personally or impede their strategic goals, which serve their beloved ecumenism. This is the truth. Everything else is merely elaborate window dressing!

In conclusion, finally, it is easy to prove that “post-Patristic” theology constitutes a clear and blatant deviation from both the method and mind of the Holy Fathers. It is, in other words, a deviation from traditional theology, both as to the way, the preconditions, and the criteria of theologizing in an Orthodox manner and as to the content of the Church’s Patristic theology.

 

NOTES

1. Professor Tselengides has, in Homeric fashion, nodded on this point, since the Canon that he cites does not specifically mention joint prayer with heretics and excommunicates. There is a Canon very similar, though not verbally identical, to the one that he mentions, namely Canon LXIV (LXV according to the Πηόάλιον) of the Holy Apostles, which decrees: “If any clergyman or layman enter into a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated” (G. Ralles and M. Potles [eds.], Σύνταγμα των θείων καί ιερών Κανόνων [Collection of the Divine and sacred Canons] [Athens: G. Chartophylax, 1852-1859], Vol. II, pp. 81-82). There are several other Canons which, taken together, corroborate the author’s point, to wit: Canons X, XI, XLV, of the Holy Apostles; Canon II of the Synod of Antioch; and Canon XXXIII of the Synod of Laodicaea. Moreover, all of these Canons were ratified by the Synod in Trullo in its Second Canon (Ralles and Potles, Σύνταγμα, Vol. II, pp. 308-310).

2. Romans 10:2.

3. Father John Romanides makes a similar point: “The most important element in Patristic epistemology is that the partial knowability of the divine actions or energies, and the absolute and radical unknowability and incommunicability of the divine essence is [sic] not a result of the philosophical or theological speculation, as it is in Paul of Samosata, Arianism, and Nestorianism, but of the personal experience of revelation or participation in the uncreated glory of God by means of vision or theoria. Saint Gregory defines a theologian as one who has reached this theoria by means of purification and illumination, and not by means of dialectical speculation” {Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine [Boston: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981], p. 78).

4. See St. John Chrysostomos, “Homily VII on St. John,” §1, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LIX, col. 63: “Let us not move the eternal boundaries which our Fathers set.”

5. “Remove not the eternal landmarks, which thy fathers set” (Proverbs 22:28).

6. In speaking about Christ as the Origin, or Source (Colossians 1:18), of every creature, St. Gregory remarks that the origin of every thing is not alien to that which is sequent to it, and that if one were to define the origin as life, anything sequent to such an origin would assuredly also be life. The same applies in the cases of light and holiness. Thus, the benefit of our believing that Christ is our Origin or Source is that we should become such as we believe our Origin or Source to be: that is, that we should be Chris- tified, and therefore deified [trans.] (see On Perfection, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XLVI, cols. 280D-281A). The only difference is that the holiness of God is fontal and natural (it is essentially an energy of the Divine nature), whereas the holiness of a Saint is charismatic, being bestowed by God according to Grace.

7. II St. Peter 1:21.

8. II St. Peter 1:16.9

9. See the Όρος of the Fourth Synod in Ioannes Karmires (ed.), Ta Δογματικά και Συμβολικά Μνημεία τής ’Ορθοδόξου Καθολικής Εκκλησίας (The dogmatic and credal monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church) Vol. 1,2nd ed. (Athens: 1960), p. 175.

10. Cf. St. Basil the Great: “The doctrines of the Fathers are contemned [disregarded with contempt], the Apostolic Traditions are set at naught, and the devices of innovators are in vogue in the Churches; men now indulge in verbal subtleties rather than theologizing, and the wisdom of this world wins first prize” (“Epistle XC,” §2, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XXXII, col. 473B).

11. Discourse 30 (§13), Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXVIII, col. 1157C.

12. “Second Discourse on the Procession of the Holy Spirit,” §18, Συγγράμματα, ed. Panagiotes Chrestou, Vol. I (Thessalonike: 1962), p. 94.

13. “Pentecost occurred historically on one occasion but is reiterated in the lives of the Saints. When the deified attain to a state of spiritual life, they then share in Pentecost and become Apostles of Jesus Christ. Pentecost is the crowning point of glorification and deification. All who follow the same journey as the Disciples ascend to this vision of God and partake of the Grace and energy of Pentecost” (Archimandrite Hierotheos Blachos [Metropolitan Hierotheos of Naupaktos], Oi Αεσποτικές Εορτές [The feasts of the Lord] [Lebadeia, Greece: Hiera Mone Genethliou tes Theotokou, 1995], p. 360).

 

Greek source: An extract from Professor Tselengides’ book Προϋποθέσεις και Κριτήρια τοϋ Όρθοόόξως και Άπλανώς Θεολογεΐν: Θεολογικές και Έκκλησιολογικές Προσεγγίσεις (Preconditions and criteria for theologizing in an Orthodox and unerring manner: Theological and ecclesiological approaches) (Thessalonike: Ekdosesis P. Pournara, 2013) (pp. 101-110).

English source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXXII (2015), No. 2, pp. 3-10.