Софиология
Шрифт:
The unorthodoxy of the icon of Sophia remained an obstacle however for the reception of sophiology in official Russian Orthodoxy. For Bulgakov, Sophia was not a hypostasis of God, but an icon of his nature for humanity, and an instrument of hermeneutics for the interpretation of God's presence in the modern world. [533] Sophia is not only instrumental for human reason as object of human contemplation – the vision of God (theo-reia), but also instrumental for human practical reason that tries to build a better world. Sophia is the key for understanding the relation of humanity to God and of God to humanity, because her world-immanent being reflects her world-transcendent being.
533
See also Myroslav Tataryn, «Sergei Bulgakov: Eastern Orthodoxy engaging the modern world» in Studies in religion/Sciences Religieuses 31/3-4 (2002), pp. 313–322, p. 315
Sophia, on the other hand, is never only an instrument of hermeneutics, or of social ethics, but she is also an active and divine principle. Humanity not only strives up to God, God also comes down to elevate humanity. From an exclusively immanent, e.g. a secular sociological standpoint such as Max Weber's, it is impossible to decide about true and false phenomena of God's presence in the world, or to choose between Christ and Anti-Christ. This problem puts us right in the middle of Solov’"ev's last work Tri razgovora [534] that concluded it is impossible to decide on the question of just wars and the nature of evil from an immanent or exclusively inner-worldly standpoint.
534
Tri razgovora o voine, progresse i konce vsemirnoi istorii, so vkliucheniem kratkoi povesti ob Antikhriste is prilozheniiami. (1900), translated as War, Progress, and the End of History: Three Conversations, Including a Short Story of the АпИ-Christ, Lindisfarne Press, 1991, further referred to as Tri razgovora.
According to Tri razgovora only true belief makes it possible to discern between Christ and Antichrist. The ability to discriminate between good and evil in the world that is given in Sophia is of the utmost importance for sophiology as the study of the progress of Christian humanity in its double task to relate the world to God in a humanization of nature, and to relate humanity to God in a deification through the Church that is Divine humanity or Sophia in actu. [535]
535
Bulgakov, Sophla, 1993, p. 134, p. 140 (see also note 1)
The Osnovy (foundations or principles) of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church are in the plural. This seems to imply the Osnovy depart from various principles and not from the one principle of Sophia
– The Wisdom of God. Chapter I on the basic theological provisions of the Osnovy starts with giving several definitions of the Church. The unifying principle of the Osnovy, therefore, seems to be the Church itself that is at once the universal Church, and the historical Russian Orthodox Church as an expression of the universal Church in this world. The Osnovy depart from the position of the Russian Orthodox Church and its mission in the world and try to determine its inner-worldly relations.
The Church is the assembly of believers in Christ (par 1.1), but also a divine-human organism (1.2, bogochelovecheskll organlzm) and the Body of Christ in this world. The Church is a 'unity of the new humanity' in Christ. The Osnovy here quote Slavophile Orthodox philosopher A.S. Khomiakov who used the term sobornala cerkov' in the sense of 'conciliar church'. According to the Osnovy, the Church shares Christ's mission to save the world, but can only do this through sobornoe sluzhenle or conciliar service
(1.2). In the official document Baslc Teachlng of Russlan Orthodox Church on Human Dlgnlty, Freedom and Rlghts (2008), the substantive sobornost' is used to denote the Orthodox tradition that 'wants to keep the unity of the society on the basis of the eternal ethical values.' Here the ROC seems to subscribe to the interpretation of sobornost' as the principle of cohesion and organization of Orthodox society.
The Osnovy also use the formula 'continuous service (sluzhenle) to God and neighbor' to describe the life in the Church of every Christian. This formula at first sight seems close to Tolstoi's 'love of God and neighbor'. In contradistinction with Tolstoi, the sluzhenle of the Osnovy is not individual, but conciliar action. This continuous conciliar service of God and neighbor is closer to Bulgakov's concept of podvlzhnlchestvo than to Tolstoi's asceticism. Furthermore, like Bulgakov, the Osnovy explicitly do not admit 'to shun the surrounding world in a Manichean way,' as Tolstoi preached. [536] The Church on the contrary calls all Christians to participate in the world. This participation in the world 'should be based on the awareness that the world, socium and state are objects of God's love.'
536
Bulgakov, Sophia, 1993, p. 14, «There are two opposite poles in the Christian attitude to life, which are both equally untrue in their one-sidedness. These are firstly, world-denying Manicheism, which separates God from the world by an impassable gulf and thus makes the existence of Divine-humanity out of the question; and, secondly an acceptance of the world as it is, combined with submission to its values, which is termed 'secularization'.»
(1.3) Here without naming Sophia, the Osnovy seem to take an inner-worldly position that concentrates on the love of God for the world. The Osnovy also stress the particularity and plurality of gifts in the relation of the Church to society, as well as the fact that everyone (clergy, monk or lay) can realize this participation in different ways and degrees. This seems to correspond as well to the sophiological ideal of sobornost' of the organization of Church community where everybody can bring and do his or her own service or work for the well-being of the community. [537]
537
For Bulgakov, this is too moderate an expression of Christian ministry. Although Bulgakov recognizes the plurality of gifts and therefore of the calling of every person, there is no dissimilarity in the moral exigencies of podvizhnichestvo for believers, religious or lay
In Chapter VI of the Osnovy, work is presented as an organic element of human life. Work already existed in the Garden of Eden, before the fall, There, work was co-creation and co-operation with God by virtue of the original likeness of humanity to God. After the fall, work became 'labor in the sweat'. Daily work is necessary, according to the Osnovy, but it does not represent an absolute value as it does not contribute to the salvation of humanity. (VI.4). For Bulgakov, as we have seen, the role of work is essential, but not sufficient for the salvation of humanity,
The social involvement of the Russian Orthodox Church is related to its mission of the salvation of Christian humanity and of the world. This certainly is a sophiological theme: salvation is not individual but conciliar and does not only concern humanity, but the world as well. The Church should not only preach, but also do 'good works aimed to improve the spiritual and material condition of the world around her.' (I.4) The Osnovy here come close to the notions of humanization of nature and churchification of society that Bulgakov's sophiology defined as the telos of human work as service to God,
Sophiology, Tolstoi and the Russian Orthodox Church present various structural conceptualizations or Weberian Ideal types of the Orthodox attitude to the world and to life in the world. The central aspects of these alternative Orthodox conceptualizations of the world are God's love for the world and his demand of the love of every Christian for God and neighbor, The various orthodox social teachings differed in their interpretation of the love that should be central in humankind's relation to God, each other and the world.