Panteleimon Tomazou, Ph.D. Candidate in Dogmatic Theology
October 16, 2026 | Orthodoxos
Typos
From an Orthodox perspective, one
of the most fundamental problems of Liberation Theology lies in the way it
connects the Kingdom of God with historical and social liberation. The Kingdom
of God is not an ideal social condition that is gradually realized within
history, nor is it the result of changes in economic and political structures.
It is the uncreated divine Kingdom, the very uncreated glory and energy of God,
which is not brought about by historical development and is not the product of
human action. It is timeless and eternal. It is not history that develops until
it is transformed into the Kingdom of God; on the contrary, the uncreated
Kingdom enters into history and draws the worthy into itself, making them
partakers of the divine life.
A characteristic example is the
Transfiguration of Christ. The disciples did not create the Kingdom or bring it
into being within history. They were deemed worthy to partake of and behold,
according to the measure of their receptivity, the uncreated glory of Christ.
Therefore, the Kingdom is not something built by man within history, but an
uncreated reality into which man is admitted by grace.
For this reason, Orthodox
eschatology cannot identify the progress of history with the coming of the
Kingdom. A more just society is certainly desirable, and care for the poor is
an integral part of Christian life. Nevertheless, even the most just social
order remains a created and historical reality. The created does not develop
into the uncreated. The Kingdom is not the ultimate achievement of a social
program, but man's participation in the uncreated divine life.
Similar caution is also needed
regarding the concept of so-called “structural sin.” From an Orthodox
perspective, sin has a personal character. An economic, political, or social
structure does not possess a heart, freedom, will, or personal responsibility,
and therefore cannot commit sin. This certainly does not mean that unjust
social conditions or institutions that perpetuate injustice do not exist. They
do exist, however, because many persons commit sins, and these personal sins
have social consequences and can become entrenched in institutions, attitudes,
and practices.
Greed, avarice, lust for power,
injustice, hatred, and exploitation originate in the human heart and from there
enter into society. Therefore, it is not the impersonal “structure” that sins;
it is human persons who create, maintain, and make use of unjust structures.
Social injustice is real, but its root lies in the passions and personal sins
of human beings.
For this reason, the Orthodox
healing of social evil begins with repentance and the purification of the
heart. This does not mean indifference to society. Quite the contrary. He who
is healed of avarice does not exploit the worker. He who is healed of self-love
can truly love his neighbor. He who is freed from ambition does not use power
to oppress others. Personal healing inevitably has social consequences.
Orthodoxy, however, does not seek the primary source of evil in an economic or
social system, but in the heart of fallen man.
At this point, caution is also
needed regarding the contrast between Orthodoxy and orthopraxy. For the
Orthodox tradition, these are not two independent realities that must
subsequently be brought together. True Orthodoxy necessarily includes
orthopraxy. Right faith is not an abstract ideological acceptance of dogmatic
propositions, but a concrete way of being and living within the body of the
Church. If someone professes the faith correctly but does not live in
accordance with what he professes, this does not mean that we must add an
independent “orthopraxy” to Orthodoxy. It means that he himself does not put
into practice in his life the faith that he professes.
This becomes even clearer if we
examine the patristic concept of theoria. Liberation Theology often
contrasts contemplation with action and calls for a transition from an
abstract, theoretical theology to liberating action. However, such a contrast
cannot be transferred unchanged to Orthodoxy. In the Orthodox patristic tradition,
theoria does not mean the ideal, abstract thought, or an intellectual
construct detached from reality. Theoria means primarily vision, the vision of
God and, at its culmination, the contemplation of and participation in the
uncreated divine glory.
And it is precisely for this
reason that theoria presupposes praxis. Man does not attain the
vision of God through an abstract intellectual process. Faith, repentance, the
observance of the divine commandments, ascetic struggle, and the purification
of the heart from the passions must come first. Praxis, therefore, is
not the opposite of theoria; it is its necessary prerequisite. And theoria,
on the other hand, is not an escape from reality, but man's vision of and
participation in the uncreated energy and glory of God by grace.
Therefore, in Orthodoxy there is
no division between theoria and praxis, the ideal and the real,
Orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The patristic path is organic: faith – observance of
the commandments – praxis – purification – theoria. Praxis leads
to theoria, while true theoria is inevitably expressed in man's
way of life as well. There is therefore no need to replace a supposedly
“theoretical Orthodoxy” with a “practical Orthodoxy,” since this contrast is
foreign to the very patristic meaning of these terms.
Another serious issue concerns
the attempt to ground a particular social model in the eternal relations
between the Persons of the Holy Trinity. In Liberation Theology, and
particularly in the theology of Leonardo Boff, which we shall examine in a
subsequent article, Trinitarian communion is used as a model for human society.
The mutuality, communion, and equality of the divine Persons are thus presented
as the theological foundation of a society free from relations of domination
and oppression.
Such a transposition, however, is
problematic from the standpoint of Orthodox theology. Human society cannot
reflect the eternal Trinitarian relations. The relationship between the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not a sociological model that can be
transferred to political or social organization. The Holy Trinity is not a
society of three human subjects from which we can derive principles of social
organization. Rather, it is the uncreated mystery of the one God, the eternal
hypostatic relations of the three divine Persons, which cannot be transformed
into political or sociological categories.
It is precisely here that the
radical distinction between the created and the uncreated must be preserved.
The eternal relations of the divine Persons belong to the uncreated mystery of
divine life, whereas human society belongs to the created order. If we transfer
the intra-Trinitarian relations directly to social reality, we risk turning
Trinitarian theology into a social theory and treating the mystery of the Holy
Trinity as a model of political organization.
This, of course, does not mean
that the Christian faith does not provide a foundation for love, solidarity,
and care for one's neighbor. However, the foundation of Christian solidarity
must not be sought in a sociological imitation of the eternal Trinitarian
relations, but in the common human nature which Christ assumed. Through the
Incarnation, the Son and Word of God assumed our common human nature. Christian
love for every human being is therefore founded upon the fact that Christ
assumed the nature common to us all.
For this reason, love for the
poor, the suffering, and those who have suffered injustice does not need to be
grounded in a social or political interpretation of the Holy Trinity. It is
grounded in Christology and anthropology. Our neighbor is of the same nature as
ourselves, a partaker of the same human nature, the nature which Christ
assumed, sanctified, and deified in His own hypostasis. The Incarnation,
therefore, provides the true Christological foundation for love and solidarity,
without any need to turn the eternal relations of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit into a model of social organization.
Herein lies a more general
problem as well: theological frameworks from the Western world cannot be
transferred unchanged into the Orthodox context and then used as criteria for
interpreting the Orthodox tradition. Liberation Theology arose under very specific
historical, social, and theological conditions, primarily in Latin America. The
questions it sought to answer, the social analysis it employed, and even the
very tension between theoria and praxis were shaped within a
particular Western theological and sociopolitical environment.
Orthodoxy, however, has its own
anthropology, ascetic tradition, ecclesiology, and eschatology. Above all, it
possesses the fundamental distinction between the created and the uncreated,
and the experience of theosis as real participation by grace in the
uncreated divine energies. Therefore, even when Orthodox theology confronts
entirely real problems—poverty, exploitation, injustice, and social
exclusion—it must address them on the basis of its own theological and
patristic presuppositions, rather than adopting unchanged a theological model
that arose in a different ecclesiastical and historical environment.
The essential difference can
therefore be summarized as follows: for Orthodoxy, the ultimate liberation of
man is not the construction of an ideal society within history, but the healing
of the human person and his participation by grace in the uncreated life and
Kingdom of God. The Kingdom is not the culmination of social development; it is
uncreated and timeless. Sin does not originate primarily in structures; it
originates in the human heart and from there acquires social consequences.
Orthodox theoria is not an escape from praxis; it is the vision
of God, which presupposes faith, the observance of the commandments, praxis,
and purification. Finally, just as the uncreated Kingdom cannot be transformed
into a historical social program, neither can the uncreated Trinitarian life be
transformed into a sociological model. Love and solidarity toward one's
neighbor are grounded Christologically in the common human nature which Christ
assumed. From the healing and transformation of man flow organically love for
the poor, justice, almsgiving, and genuine care for one's neighbor.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.