PRESS RELEASE

The International Conference of the Volos Academy for Theological Studies has continued its session on Thursday June 4, 2010. The conference is covered by the web television-channel www.intv.gr with simultaneous translation (English-Greek).

 Speakers of the first session were Pr. Marcus Plested (Cambridge), Rev. Dr. Paul Gavrilyuk (St. Thomas University) and Rev. Pr. John Behr (St.Vladimir's Theological Seminary).

Pr. Marcus Plested presented the theme: "The Emergence of the Neo-Patristic Synthesis: Content, Challenges and Limits"  where he tackled the construct of a 'Neo-Patristic Synthesis', questioning the extent to which it may be considered either 'new', or ‘patristic', or 'synthetic'. Close attention was paid to the connection with analagous phenomena within Roman Catholic and other contexts. The paper delineated both the achievements and the limitations of this rich but problematic theological current. In particular, the speaker probed further the extent to which it remains conditioned by precisely the kind of imitative-reactive dynamic it sought to overcome and transcend. In this respect, treatments of Aquinas and other 'western' figures by Florovsky, Lossky, and others will be of especial importance. By way of conclusion, I shall draw some conclusions as to the future 'ways' of Orthodox theology.

Rev. Dr. Paul L. Gavrilyuk spoke on: “Florovsky’s “Christian Hellenism”: A Critical Evaluation”. The paper explored the polemical motivations and the constructive aspirations of Georges Florovsky’s retrieval of the Fathers. Florovsky’s ‘neopatristic synthesis’, far from being merely a historical study of the Fathers, was a theological reform program intended to liberate modern Orthodox theology from its ‘Western captivity’. The speaker discussed his understanding of Christian Hellenism as an ideal instantiation of the conversion of intellectual culture, and note his tendency to focus primarily on the contribution of the Greek Fathers. He suggested that Florovsky’s theological project has been taken in two principal directions. One the one hand, Florovsky’s idealization of Christian Hellenism seems to have encouraged what might be called ‘patristic fundamentalism’, ecclesiastical triumphalism, a posture of spiritual superiority vis-à-vis the Western ‘Other’, intellectual isolationism, and Hellenocentricity verging on idolatry. On the other hand, properly understood, Florovsky’s neopatristic synthesis leads in a different direction. Far from sanctioning triumphalism, Florovsky’s searching criticism of Russian religious thought invites intense ecclesial self-examination. Instead of endorsing ‘patristic fundamentalism’, Florovsky summons Orthodox theologians to acquire patristic mind, to enter into the spirit of patristic thought. Rather than encouraging isolationism, one of the functions of the neopatristic synthesis is to provide a foundation for healing the division between the East and the West. Christian Hellenism is a theological vision, which refuses to subordinate the historical divine revelation to any philosophy that compromises the centrality of the divine incarnation.  Despite Florovsky’s at times misleading rhetoric, it is not the cultural hegemony of ‘sacred Hellenism’, but the Christ of the gospels, the Christ of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Christ of the Church that is at the heart of his “neopatristic synthesis”.

Rev. Dr. John Behr in his paper on "Passing Beyond the Neo-Patristic Synthesis". Looking back at the past century, the paper explored, first, the genesis and limitations of the Neo-Patristic synthesis and, second, the specialization and fragmentation of the discipline of theology, thereby also indicating possible new directions. The return to the Fathers, urged by Florovsky and others in exile in the West, was seen as both a liberation from the “Westernized” theology of their own past and a distancing from the “Westernized” religious philosophy of Bulgakov; yet in appealing to the “mind” of the Fathers, rather than more concretely to their texts, Florovsky drew from the same well-spring of Romanticism and Idealism. The legacy of the Neo-Patristic synthesis is mixed: it was a breath of fresh air and stimulated many great works, but it has also stymied theological reflection by, first, not paying close enough attention to the particularity of each Father and, second, by giving the impression that theology can only be carried out under a patristic guise. The specialization within the different fields of theology over the past century has also been a mixed blessing: it has, on the one hand, fragmented the discipline to the point that it is hard to see all the fields belonging together as theology; but on the other hand it has also provided a dramatically increased understanding and knowledge of the historical contextuality of the Christian faith and each element within it, so that we are again able to hear the distinct voices of others. As such, the future of Orthodox theology may lie not so much in returning to some lost golden age of purity, which in reality is always our own projection of self, but in hearing the dialogue of the Christian witnesses, learning to take part in that conversation, and then, with all the resources now available to us, to address the Word of God to the twenty-first century.

In the second morning session, Archbishop Dr. Hilarion Alfeyef of Volokolamsk gave a paper on the “Orthodox Tradition and Contextual Theology”. Since he was not present, he represented by  Fr. Mihail Asmus. Dr. Tamara Grdzelidze analyzed the theme: “A Dialogue with Living Tradition’: Contextualisation of the Fathers/Teachers of the Early Church in the Ecumenical Context”. Dr. Grdzelidze raised various questions in her paper such as: are the Orthodox in need of finding theological expression attuned to changing realities? If yes, then orthodox theology must be - or already is - contextualized. Is orthodox theology compatible with the philosophical systems offered by modernity or with the continuous rejection of these systems by post-modernity? Does orthodox theology take the challenge of Reason and, without trying to ignore or destroy it, maintain the ecclesial life and mystical experience in anticipation of the eschaton? For example, can we say that the Church fathers can be contextualized today, or at any other time in the past and in the future? Or, what may orthodox theology have against basic concepts of contextual theology such as a specific context, human experience, theological reflection charged with emancipator challenge? Will it be true to say that mystical and pastoral experience of the Fathers of the Church (unanimously received in the Orthodox Church) led them to shape the Orthodox theology? Since context begins with an experience of one’s own context, engagement with the experience underlies any theological reflection. The dilemma lies in bringing the traditional patterns of theology, like orthodox theology, with today’s context/contexts. But bringing the two together is the only way to keep faith alive.

During the first evening session papers were given by Pr. Daniel Ayuch (Balamand) and John Fotopoulos (St. Mary’s College) on the biblical studies and the role of contextuality.

In his paper Pr. Daniel Ayuch on “Biblical Courses: A new approach to an old discipline. The Relationship between Biblical and Other Theological Discipline”stressed that Orthodox theological education has experienced essential changes during the last century. However, it has not succeeded to adapt to the changes of postmodern civilization. Orthodox theologians resort to different solution paradigms that are labeled in church and theological jargon with different titles: conservative theology, neo-patristic theology or westernized critical theology. Within this fluctuating framework, it is important to ponder the relationship between the different disciplines that encompass any modern theological curriculum. The present paper focuses on the place of biblical courses within the undergraduate programs that are usually known as a B.Th. or B.Div. Rather than going into a discussion on general curriculum design and its components, this contribution is written to point out the theological arguments for the necessity of biblical courses with modern methodological premises within the curriculum of any Orthodox faculty of theology. Why does the student need biblical courses that deal with western theories? Why do the other courses need students with this kind of information? Should not they rather learn the commentaries of the Holy Fathers than lose their time with theories and speculations of people that know little about the mystery of salvation? In other words, how can we argue that modern biblical courses can also be offered in Orthodox theological seminaries? The speaker made a systematic exposition of reasons and questions within the framework of this conference that challenges Orthodox theology to move to a new step for a positive change and renewal.

John Fotopoulos spoke on: “Orthodox Christianity and Historical Criticism of the Bible”. According to Fotopoulos, Florovsky's call for a return to the fathers is commonly known as the "Neopatristic synthesis," which he envisioned as "a creative return" to the "mind of the fathers". Nevertheless, this call to return to the fathers was misappropriated by many Orthodox scholars and clergy who returned to the fathers and in many cases were content to simply repeat what the fathers had said.  The effects of this return to the fathers on 20^th century Orthodoxy, whether consistent or not with Florovsky's vision, have been especially pronounced in the area of biblical studies.  Although the historical-critical method has been the leading approach of scriptural interpretation for over one hundred years among Protestant and Roman Catholics, there has been a great deal of disparagement leveled at it for a variety of reasons by some scholars both inside and outside the Orthodox Church.  However, Orthodox scholarly use of the historical-critical method in biblical interpretation and a search for the literal sense of Scripture are consistent with belief in the Bible as the Word of God.  Simply states, historical criticism of the Bible cannot be ignored by Orthodox scholars today and simply replaced by patristic exegesis.  Rather, Orthodox scholarly use of the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation and a search for the literal sense can facilitate a fruitful engagement with and application of the Scriptures in the life of the Orthodox faithful, assisting with an application of the Scriptures in liturgical preaching, as well as facilitating dynamic engagement with the message of the Scriptures in worship within Orthodox liturgy. 

In the last session of the day three speakers delivered a paper: Pr. George Demacopoulos (Fordham University), Rev Dr Alexei V. Nesteruk (Poustmouth University), Rev Dr Demetrios Bathrellos (Cambridge/Priest of the Agia Sophia Greek Orthodox Church, Drafi, Attica, Greece).

In his paper: “History, Post-Colonial Theory, and Some New Possibilities for Retrieving the Theological Past” George Demacopoulos argue that Postcolonial theory began in the mid twentieth century as a means to deconstruct and combat the residual effects of Western exploitation of the colonial subject in all of its cultural, political, and economic manifestations.   Thus far, the appropriation of post-colonial theory in the study of religion and theology has been limited to an investigation of how pre-colonial/non-Christian cultural traditions can disrupt and reconstitute the dominant Christian discourse.  The paper proposed the possibility of applying postcolonial theory in entirely new ways, by advocating its use for the study of the Christian East, a community that was Christian prior to its colonization. Indeed, although the history of the Christian East in many ways defies the standard colonial/subaltern paradigm, this paper argues that postcolonial theory can nevertheless help to explain the radically divergent attempts by modern Orthodox authors to self-situate (theologically, politically, and culturally) within the Western intellectual tradition.  Without denying the existence of distinct theological trajectories in Christian history, this paper argues that many nineteenth- and twentieth-century Orthodox descriptions of a Christian East/Christian West dichotomy were often motivated (and exaggerated) by internal questions related to self-identity vis-à-vis the West.  But at the same time, the paper proposes that Orthodox Christianity might be positioned to be especially receptive to appreciate Dipesh Chakrabarty’s attempt to investigate what he calls “subaltern pasts,” particularly religious practices and beliefs that do not submit to the hegemonic categories of the Western Enlightenment.

Rev. Dr. Alexei Nesteruk, who was absent and his paper read by Pr. Bruce Beck was on: “Orthodoxy in a Scientific Age: from a Neo-Patristic Synthesis to Radical Theological Commitment”. The objective of the paper, according to the speaker, was to radicalise the quest for mediation between theology and science in the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox theological commitment understood as an expression of immediate existential concerns of humanity.  The necessity of such a radicalisation originates in the fact that a contemporary “dialogue” between science and religion, which mostly has been taking place in the West, does not have any impact whatsoever for practicing scientists. It is because of the fast scientific advance which makes human civilisation a hostage of the scientific progress, that scientific research and achievements slowly transform into a scientific ideology which gives rise to atheism of a sophisticated kind. A new scientifically based ideology asserts monism and impossibility of transcendence. At the same time it does not deny spirituality as part of the world, but this spirituality does not need God. One talks about an atheistic spirituality which is indirectly supported by the scientific ideology. Then the challenge for Eastern Orthodox theology is not to theoretically mediate with scientific research thus either assimilating it into a theological scope or accommodating to it through extension of theology, but to respond and resist to atheistic spirituality as a manifestation of further secularisation and aggressive dechristianisation of all aspects of society by placing the issue of human dignity and the value of life in the center of this resistance. By so doing, the stance of Orthodox theology on science cannot be separated from its appropriation of the modern political, economic and ecological situation in which science plays a pivotal role. (In this case the issue merges with a general issue of Orthodoxy and the West). The response and resistance presume a rather radical commitment as priority of Christian faith and existential theology over all secular forms of thought. This commitment can be characterized as a further synthesis of premodern ideas of the Fathers of the Church and their ecclesial theology with contemporary philosophical and scientific thought reflecting the present human condition.  The aim of this synthesis is a) to reassert the importance and values of Christian civilization in those times when the extreme secularization of societies, as well as dehumanization of nature and life, threaten the stability of human existence and fulfillment of its Divine tasks; b) by fighting the militant and hidden atheism in contemporary world to reassert the sacramental sense of human life and indispensability of ecclesial and Eucharistic  dimensions of existence for a relational transcendence and salvation.

Rev. Dr. Demetrios Bathrellos presented a paper on: “Systematic Theology as a New form of Orthodox Theology?” In his paper he suggested a way by which Dogmatics and Systematic Theology can be distinguished from each other. Dogmatics is the official teaching of the Church with regard to its fundamental doctrines. Systematic Theology is the creative attempt to re-conceive and reshape the Christian message in the light of our historical, cultural, and theological challenges. The latter must be based on the former but also move further in an attempt to keep theology alive and able to address people in different times and places. He argued that the development of systematic theology is of paramount importance for the future of Orthodox theology.