Original location:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/index.html

A CRITICISM OF THE LACK OF CONCERN FOR DOCTRINE
AMONG RUSSIAN ORTHODOX BELIEVERS

by Father George Florovsky

The late Metropolitan Eulogius was discussing the recent religious revival
among Russians, both at home and in exile, during the early years of
Russian emigration. The fact was obvious: there was an awakening. The
reasons were obvious, also: the shock of tragic events, insecurity and
uncertainty, suffering and fear. But exactly what was it that attracted
Russians to the Church? The dogmas, the Orthodox doctrine? Yes, said the
Metropolitan, so it was in the past, and especially in Byzantium among the
Greeks, but not in Russia. There was a time when even lay people were
deeply interested in questions of faith. But Russians, the Metropolitan
contended, with the exception of the few educated theologians, have not yet
reached the point at which they would be concerned with the problems of
abstract theological thought, and in fact they are not interested in them
at all. It may be, the Metropolitan conceded, that the Church has failed to
develop an interest in theology among believers. But, in his opinion, the
true reason for this lack of interest among the Russians was that they
neither cherish, nor understand the theoretical aspect of the realization
or embodiment of the Church's ideals in the lives of men. Above all, they
cherish the ritual aspect of religion, the beauty of services, ikons,
melodies, and the like. The Metropolitan proceeded to explain the emotional
and educational value of the rites. He added, however, that all this ritual
may be little understood, and that people do not really know what truth is
witnessed or symbolized in the rites. Yet, he contended, rites themselves
are so touching and moving, exalting and inspiring, regardless of their
meaning.

Whether this is a fair description of the Russian approach to Christianity
is open to doubt. But the attitude described by the late Metropolitan is
typical of certain elements in the Russian Church. It is persistently
asserted by various writers that Russians learn Christianity not from the
Gospel but from the Lives of Saints. It is also asserted that for the
Orthodox in general, Christianity is not "Doctrine" but "Life." The
Orthodox are concerned not with "dogmatic systems" but with "living." They
comprehend the truth not through the mediation of intellectual
understanding, but through the mediation of "the heart" and in an
aesthetical manner. One should look for Orthodox teaching not in systems
but in images, rites and ikons. It is even asserted that in the Orthodox
East there is "no theory of Christianity," but that instead there are
saints, ikons, poetry and so on.

No Orthodox, and no Catholic, would deny the basic importance of sacred
rites and the life of sanctity. What is embarrassing in the statements
which we have just quoted is their exclusiveness, their emphasis on
not—but. One should ask why "doctrinal systems" and "intellectual
understanding" are so carefully restricted, so contemptuously devaluated
and almost altogether -eliminated. The balance seems to be broken. In any
case, this over-emphasis on the "artistic" aspect of the ritual is not in
agreement with the actual tradition of Orthodox art itself. And if one can
be instructed by Orthodox hymnography and ikons, it is precisely because a
very definite "theory of Christianity" is embodied and expressed there.
"Theory" means above all "contemplation;" it is an insight and a vision, a
poetic insight and an intellectual vision. According to Orthodox spiritual
tradition, the Nous is the ruling power of the inner life, "to
hegemonikon." Traditional Eastern Orthodox hymnography, inherited by
Russians from the Greeks, is not just lyrics; it is marked not by emotion,
but by sobriety. It is high poetry, indeed, but it is "metaphysical
poetry," or rather "theological poetry," and does not hesitate to sometimes
use elaborate theological terminology. Indeed, some of the greatest hymns
of the Eastern Church are simply paraphrases of dogmatic definitions: a
Son, who was born before ages of the Father without mother, and who hath in
no way undergone either a change, or intermingling, or division, but hath
preserved in their entirety the peculiarities of each nature (Dogmatic
Theotokion, in the 3rd tone.) This is precisely the definition of the
Council of Chalcedon, and it requires theological understanding. It was
aptly said that Orthodox Ikons are "dogmatic monuments" (V. V. Bolotov.)
They witness the same truth which is defined in doctrine, and according to
the Seventh Ecumenical Council, they must be controlled by sound doctrine.
In brief, there is no room for this disjunction: not -but. Of course,
dogmas must be lived and not assessed by abstract thinking alone, but for
that very reason it is misleading to urge not doctrine but life. This habit
of division and disjunction only distorts the "life" itself. One cannot
separate "spirituality" and "theology" in St. John of Damascus, or in St.
Gregory of Nazianzus. One misses the very center of the spirituality of
Father John of Kronstadt when it is deliberately "abstracted" from his
theological vision. Holiness in the Orthodox tradition is always
interpreted "theologically," and not in the categories of aesthetic emotion
or exaltation, but in the categories of spiritual sobriety, in faithfulness
to truth.

It is really embarrassing that there is so little concern for "dogmatic
systems," as well as for the Doctrine of the Church, in various circles and
quarters of the Orthodox society of our day, and that "devotion" is so
often forcefully divorced from "faith." There is too much concern with "the
vessels" and too little concern with the Treasure, which alone makes the
vessel precious. Symbols and rites are vehicles of the truth, and if they
fail to convey the truth, they simply cease to function. Unfortunately, it
is often suggested that "interest in doctrines" is something rather archaic
and is a Greek attitude rather than a Russian one (again, not—but). There
is but one Orthodox Tradition of faith, and it transcends all national
barriers. The feast of Orthodoxy, which we still faithfully celebrate on
the first Sunday in Lent, is precisely a theological feast. The Legacy of
Fathers is the core of our Orthodox tradition, and it is a theological
legacy. The Doctrine of Fathers is the spring of Orthodoxy in life. One is
fully justified in contending that our modem confusion in life comes
directly from the contemporary neglect of "sound teaching," from the lack
of "sound learning" in matters of faith.

Orthodoxy stands by its faithfulness to the Seven Ecumenical Councils. It
is so often forgotten that the Councils were engaged precisely in the
formulation of Christian Doctrine, in the elaboration of "dogmatic
systems." Is it a step forward that now we are not moved or impressed by
the dogmatic teachings of those great men who gave their entire lives to
the establishment of the Right Faith, of Orthodoxy? We praise the Three
Hierarchs, who were above all the ecumenical teachers, the teachers of the
right faith, but we are strangely indifferent to their perennial
contribution to the life of the Church: namely—their teaching, their
theology, their interpretation of the Christian truth "in the words of
reason." And do we not need, as a matter of first priority, for our
intellect to be illuminated by the "Light of Reason" in the present days of
intellectual confusion? Without a sober guidance, without the stable
element of sound doctrine, our feelings would but err and our hearts would
be blinded.

One should accept the present revival of religion, the awakening of the
heart, as a gift of Grace, as a token of Divine Mercy, but also as a stem
summons and invitation to study and understanding, to the Knowledge of
Truth which embraces our Eternal Life. There is an unfortunate prejudice,
one which does not stem from Orthodox sources, that "doctrines" are
abstract and "theology" is intellectualism. Our Lord and Redeemer is the
Logos, and He illumines all men; and the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life, is
the Spirit of Truth. "Emotions" are human moods, but the truth is Divine.

Let us adorn the vessels, but not forget that vessels are of clay. Yet in
them an Eternal Treasure is hidden: the Word of Life.

*From The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, ed. Richard S. Haugh
(Belmont, MA: Nordland), Vol. XIII, Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal Approach, pp.
168-170.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"What our generation wants, especially in our country [America], is a true
theological revival—a revival of a living theology, which would unlock for
us the Truth that one can find in the Scriptures, the Tradition, and the
Liturgical life of the Church, but which is concealed from us by our
ignorance and neglect. Today more than ever before, we need just such a
'band of spiritual firebrands' who can inflame minds and hearts with the
fire of a loving knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, the Redeemer. In our
generation God is calling us to be his witnesses and messengers. How can
men believe if they do not hear the quickening Word? Even if we are men of
unclean lips, let us respond to the Divine call, and the fire of the Spirit
will cleanse us for the ministry of the Word." ("The Witness of the
Orthodox Church," ibid., p. 173).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Orthodox Christian Information Center