After a brief two-week hiatus from my book analysis series on Eugenia Constantinou’s book, Thinking Orthodox, I’m back at it with a few posts about Part 2 of her book, which focuses on Orthodox Theology and how it contributes to the shaping of the Orthodox phronema (mindset). So, without fanfare, let’s just jump right in.
Chapter 6: Theology of the Theologian
In Chapter 6, Constantinou lays out briefly how Orthodoxy views the task of theology and then provides a few biographical sketches of Saint John the Theologian, Saint Gregory the Theologian, and Saint Symeon the New Theologian. I’m going to focus primarily on the Orthodox understanding of theology. To get to the point, Constantinou says that although it is correct to see theology as teaching about God, Orthodoxy also emphasizes that theology also denotes mystical knowledge of God. In other words, true theology cannot exist apart from the Spiritual life. If you view God as an “object” to be explained and “objectively studied,” then you’re not really doing theology, for true theology relates experiential knowledge of God: Theologians are those who see God.
The two great “enemies” of authentic theology, therefore, are pride and innovation. Constantinou says that in Western theology, which emphasizes secular reasoning and scientific analysis in the task of theology, there is a greater danger of becoming prideful if you see theology more of an intellectual endeavor. It is easy to think you are more important than others because you know more information about God. As for innovation, this is actually a key difference between the Western and Orthodox mindsets. Orthodoxy directly rejects any notion of coming up with “new doctrines” and “new theology” arrived at by the use of human intellect. It sees its task as preserving the teaching and tradition revealed in Christ and handed down to the apostles, not as trying to innovate new and updated theological teachings. That is why Orthodoxy never came up with teachings like the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, Purgatory, Sola Scriptura, or John Calvin’s T.U.L.I.P.
In any case, instead of detailing what Constantinou says about Saint John, Saint Gregory, and Saint Symeon, I’m just going to highlight a few key insights from those overviews. First, even though these theologians all agreed that theology is important, they also understood that “knowledge of theological matters is not necessary for salvation; only simple faith is needed” (117). Stated another way, as Saint Symeon emphasized, it isn’t enough to know about God; what is needed is an experience of God. Finally, I think the following quote sums things up rather well:
“Ultimately, theology is not a set of definitions or theories. Theology is mystery since it transcends the rational mind and attempts to express the inexpressible. In schools of theology and seminaries, theology is indeed an academic subject and, as such, it requires accuracy and embraces a certain ‘intellectual rigor.’ But also, whereas in other sciences or areas of investigation, the personal sanctity of the scientist or inquirer is irrelevant. This is not the case with theology, which requires repentance, purification, and spiritual struggle” (122).
Chapter 7: Orthodox Theology and the Shaping of Phronema—Tradition
Chapter 7 is one of the most interesting chapters in Constantinou’s book because it deals with the Orthodox concept of Tradition, and this is quite different that both Catholicism and especially Protestantism. In Orthodoxy, Tradition is not simply about maintaining certain intellectual beliefs about Jesus and doing certain ancient customs. Constantinou points out that in the early Church, the apostles didn’t go about simply trying to convince people about certain facts about Jesus: “Early Christians weren’t handed a Bible; they were introduced to a way of life” (131).
Indeed, the early Christian movement was known as The Way. Therefore, the Orthodox understanding of Tradition “is not the mindless repetition of the past or the preservation of antiquated customs, but sharing the beliefs and experiencing the life in Christ just as our Orthodox ancestors did” (130). In other words, Orthodoxy understands Tradition as the very way of life the apostles preached and shared that makes it possible for us to, not just know facts about Jesus, but to actually experience actual life in Christ. When you take part in the prayers, practices, and liturgy of Orthodoxy, you are taking part in the very things the early Christians took part in as they experienced the actual Spirit-empowered life in Christ. That is the Living Context of Christian Experience, if you will. That’s why, speaking for myself, when I started reading Orthodox writers and experienced the Orthodox Church, it wasn’t so much a feeling of finding something new, as it was a feeling of, “Yes, this is the kind of thing I’ve been experiencing in my own Spiritual journey, but this helps put it all in focus.”
In that respect, if you understand that, you find yourself not obsessing over “trying to prove” in some sort of rationalistic, intellectual way that Christianity is true. To try to do that, Constantinou says, is to lack a truly Orthodox mindset. I don’t know about you, but that is quite a critique about many “apologetics ministries” that effectively try to do just that. Indeed, as a former Worldview teacher, I can attest to that notion that one should be able to use logic and reason to come to a more informed and robust Christian faith. Don’t get me wrong—that is true to an extent. We should use our intellect and reason to understand Christianity better. It is just really tempting and easy to slip into that mindset that gets obsessive over trying to come up with an airtight intellectual argument that finally shows up those stupid atheists! It reminds me of something the Catholic monk Thomas Merton once wrote: “A man of sincerity is less interested in defending the truth than in stating it clearly, for he thinks that if the truth can be clearly seen, it can very well take care of itself.”
Another way of understanding the Orthodox concept of Tradition is to see that one doesn’t so much receive Tradition as one is received into the Tradition. Again, it is a matter of seeing Christianity as a way of life one embraces and enters into, not just a set of intellectual propositions you mentally agree to by the use of your reason. In addition, as Constantinou states, there is a difference between Tradition and Traditionalism. Tradition is the living faith of the dead (meaning, you are sharing in the living faith of the Christians of the past), whereas Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living (meaning those spiritual dead churches we’ve all experienced at one time or another).
One more way of understanding it is to see that true Orthodoxy, the true Orthodox mindset, isn’t so much an obsession about following rules as it is a focus on inner transformation.
Chapter 8: Orthodox Theology and the Shaping of Phronema—Scripture
This is another interesting chapter, for it highlights some of the differences between how Orthodoxy views Scripture and how, in particular, Protestantism views Scripture. In addition, Constantinou says a few things about modern biblical scholarship, which as someone involved in Biblical Studies, I find incredibly insightful. First off, when it comes to the notion of inspiration, or more properly the various understandings of how that works, Orthodoxy clearly rejects the Fundamentalist notion of the dictation method. To the contrary, Orthodoxy views Scripture as the result of God’s synergy with human beings. Simply put, the Bible isn’t a solely human product, and it isn’t solely a divine product. It is a divine-human product. And if someone says, “But how does that work? How can you precisely explain it?” Orthodoxy will reply, “We can’t precisely explain it—deal with it!”
In any case, Orthodoxy correctly points out that originally, there was no such thing as a “New Testament” in the early Church. The early Christians had the Old Testament and the oral teaching and Tradition of the apostles. What we know as the “New Testament” is a product of that apostolic Tradition. It didn’t come to us apart from that Tradition, but rather it is, if I can say it this way, the testimony and crystallization of what that Tradition is. Therefore, you cannot truly understand the Scripture apart from that Tradition.
This is why the Protestant mantra of Sola Scriptura is so easily problematic. Christianity has never been “Sola Scriptura.” There wasn’t a complete “New Testament Scripture” for the first couple hundred years or so, and as all the early Church Fathers emphasized (yes, the very Church Fathers who preserved and canonized the New Testament), you cannot come to a correct understanding of the Scripture apart from the Church Tradition that preserved and produced it. This is what was meant by the Rule of Faith. Anyone can take verses out of context and try to make them mean whatever one wants to make them mean. But let’s not kid ourselves, that innovated interpretation of Scripture would not reflect the Rule of Faith and Tradition of the early Church.
This doesn’t mean that in one’s personal study of the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit never speaks directly to you through the Scriptures. Rather, this is talking about making theological statements and conclusions based on Scripture. If I read John 20:17, where the resurrected Jesus tells Mary that he will soon be going back to “My Father and your Father, my God and your God,” and declare, “Ha! Jesus isn’t God! He’s not divine at all! He said it himself! He was just a human being!” I would be yanking that verse out of the larger context of both John’s Gospel and the Rule of Faith as a whole, and I would be coming up with my own novel interpretation.
Now, that sort of thing, quite frankly, can be seen quite a lot in modern Biblical Studies—and from an Orthodox perspective, that is a major problem in modern Biblical Studies. In a nutshell, here is what Constantinou says about the modern academic study of the Bible. It isn’t that Orthodoxy is opposed to the academic study of the Bible, but rather it views it as impoverished and insufficient for three reasons:
- It is impossible to properly interpret the New Testament apart from Christ and apart from faith in Christ. Therefore a “purely objective or historical understanding” can never be achieved.
- Since no one can truly interpret Scripture with complete objectivity, any claim to do so is to ignore the reality that everyone comes to Scripture with their own biases and presuppositions. Therefore, Orthodox interpreters don’t rely on their own presuppositions but rather try to stay within the interpretive context of Church Tradition. If you say, “Well, that is rather limiting,” they will say, “It’s a lot less limiting than the limitations of your individual personal assumptions!”
- The fact is the Bible isn’t just a historical record. Yes, it is about history, but it isn’t “just” history. The purpose of Scripture (as II Timothy 3:16 states) is to teach, guide, and bring up believers in all righteousness. It isn’t merely to record historical events.
Bottom line, modern Biblical Studies in academia is obviously a good thing and has uncovered some tremendously important things about the Bible that has aided in our understanding of it. Still, much of modern Biblical Studies is rooted in the very Enlightenment assumption that truth must conform to science, reason, and logic, and be able to be historical verified in order to be deemed “true.” For that reason, modern Biblical Studies alone is simply insufficient for a proper understanding of Scripture.
To emphasize the importance of reading Scripture within Church Tradition, Constantinou gives the example of a zoo. Yes, you can go to a zoo and see various animals in man-made, artificial habitats and get a slightly better appreciation and understanding of them. But as nice as the zoo is, it isn’t the same as seeing those animals in their truly natural habitats. Similarly, modern academic study of Scripture is good and insightful (although not always, depending on the scholar!), but to truly understand and appreciate Scripture, one needs to read and experience it in its “natural habitat” of Church Tradition. That context provides the needed historical context of Scripture, but a literary appreciation of the writing style and artistry of the Scripture as well.
Here is another thing Constantinou says that I appreciate: “The Bible exists for our salvation, but our salvation is not dependent on the Bible. Reading the Scriptures is important because it contributes to our growth in holiness, but countless believers were illiterate and yet became saints” (178).
Finally, as someone who both grew up in an Evangelical culture (although not totally “Fundamentalist”) and has spend a large part of my career with a foot in the academic world of modern Biblical Studies, I really appreciate this quote: “Orthodox phronema rejects both biblical fundamentalism and a rationalistic, skeptical interpretation of the Bible that does not permit a faith perspective” (183).
I’ll leave things at that, and come back in a few days with Part 6!
