THE QUESTION OF DOGMATIC development has long been
a subject of discussion in theological literature: Can one accept, from the
Church's point of view, the idea of the development of dogmas? In the majority
of cases this is essentially a dispute over words; a difference occurs because
the word "development" is understood in different ways: Does one
understand "development" as the uncovering of something already
given, or as a new revelation?
In general, the view of theological thought is
this: the Church's consciousness from the Apostles down to the end of the
Church's life, being guided by the Holy Spirit, in its essence is one and the
same. Christian teaching and the scope of Divine Revelation are unchanging. The
Church's teaching of faith does not develop, and the Church's awareness of
itself, with the course of the centuries, does not become higher, deeper, and
broader than it was among the Apostles. There is nothing to add to the teaching
of faith handed down by the Apostles. Although the Church is always guided by
the Holy Spirit, still we do not see in the history of the Church, and we do
not expect, new dogmatic revelations.
Such a view on the question of dogmatic
development was present, in particular, in the Russian theological thought of
the 19th century. The seeming difference in the opinions of various persons on
this question was a matter of the circumstances under which it was discussed.
In discussions with Protestants it was natural to defend the right of the
Church to "develop" dogmas, meaning by this the right of Councils to
establish and sanction dogmatic propositions. In discussions with Roman
Catholics, on the other hand, it was necessary to oppose the arbitrary dogmatic
innovations made by the Roman Church in modern times, and thus to oppose the
principle of the creation of new dogmas which have not been handed down by the
ancient Church. In particular, the Old Catholics nearer to Orthodoxy, with both
sides rejecting the Vatican dogma of papal infallibility-strengthened in Russian
theological thought the conservative point of view on the question of dogmatic
development, the view which does not approve of the establishment of new
dogmatic definitions.
In the 1880's we see a different approach to this
question. V. S. Soloviev, who supported the union of Orthodoxy with the Roman
Church, desiring to justify the dogmatic development of the Roman Church
defended the idea of the development of the Church's dogmatic consciousness. He
argues thus: "The Body of Christ changes and is perfected" like every
organism; the original "basis" of faith is uncovered and clarified in
the history of Christianity; "Orthodoxy stands not merely by antiquity,
but by the eternally living Spirit of God."
Soloviev was inspired to defend the point of view
of "development" not only by his sympathies for the Roman church, but
also by his own religious-philosophical outlook-his ideas on Sophia, the wisdom
of God, on God-manhood as a historical process, etc. Carried along by his own
metaphysical system, Soloviev in the 1890's began to put forth the teaching of
the "eternal feminine," which, he says, "is not merely an
inactive image in God's mind, but a living spiritual being which possesses all
the fullness of power and action. The whole process of the world and history is
the process of its realization and incarnation in a great multiplicity of forms
and degrees... The heavenly object of our love is only one, and it is always
and for everyone one and the same, the eternal Femininity of God."
Thus, a whole series of new concepts began to
enter Russian religious thought. These concepts did not evoke any special
resistance in Russian theological circles, since they were expressed more as
philosophy than as theology.
Soloviev by his literary works and speeches was
able to inspire an interest in religious problems among a wide circle of
Russian educated society. However, this interest was joined to a deviation from
the authentic Orthodox way of thinking. This was expressed, for example, in the
Petersburg "religious-philosophical meetings" of 1901-1903.
At these meetings, such questions as the following were raised: "Can one
consider the dogmatic teaching of the Church already completed? Are we not to
expect new revelations? In what way can a new religious creativity be expressed
in Christianity, and how can it be harmonized with Sacred Scripture and the
Tradition of the Church, with the decrees the Ecumenical Councils, and the
teachings of the Holy Fathers?" Especially symptomatic were the disputes
concerning "dogmatic development."
In Russian religious and social thought, at the
beginning of the present century there appeared an expectation of the awakening
of a "new religious consciousness" on Orthodox soil. The idea began
to be expressed that theology should not fear new revelations, that dogmatics
should use a more broadly rational basis, that it cannot entirely ignore the
personal prophetic inspiration of the present day, that there should be a
broadening of the circle of fundamental dogmatic problems, so that dogmatics
itself might present a complete philosophical-theological world-view. The
eccentric ideas expressed by Soloviev received further development and changes,
and the first place among them was given to the problem of sophiology. The most
outstanding representatives of the new current were Priest Paul Florensky (The
Pillar and Foundation of the Church and other works) and Sergei N.
Bulgakov, who was later an Archpriest (his later sophiological writings include
The Unsetting Light, The Unburnt Bush, Person and Personality, The Friend
& Bridegroom, The Lamb of God, The Comforter, and The Revelation of
John).
In connection with these questions it is natural
for us to ask: Does dogmatic theology, in its usual form, satisfy the need of
the Christian to have a whole world outlook? Does not dogmatics, if it refuses
to acknowledge the principle of development, remain a lifeless collection of
separate dogmas?
With all assurance one must say that the sphere of
revealed truths which enter into the accepted systems of dogmatic theology gives
every opportunity for the formation of an exalted and at the same time clear
and simple world-view. Dogmatic theology, built on the foundation of firm
dogmatic truths, speaks of a Personal God Who is inexpressibly near to us, Who
does not need intermediaries between Himself and the creation: it speaks of God
in the Holy Trinity "Who is above all, and through all, and in you
all" (Eph. 4:6), of God Who loves His creation, Who is a lover of
mankind and condescending to our infirmities, but does not deprive His
creatures of freedom; it speaks of man and of mankind, of his high purpose and
exalted spiritual possibilities, and at the same time of his sad moral level at
the present time, of his fall; it presents ways and means for the return to the
lost paradise, revealed by the Incarnation and the death on the Cross of the
Son of God, and the way to acquire the eternal blessed life. All these are
vitally necessary truths. Here faith and love, knowledge and its application
inaction, are inseparable.
Dogmatic theology does not pretend to satisfy on
all points the curiosity of the human mind. There is no doubt that to our
spiritual gaze Divine revelation has revealed only a small part of the
knowledge of God and of the spiritual world. We see, in the Apostle's words,
"through a glass darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12). An innumerable number of God's mysteries remain closed
for us.
But one must state that the attempts to broaden
the boundaries of theology, whether on a mystical or on a rational foundation,
which have appeared both in ancient and modern times, do not lead to a more
complete knowledge of God and the world. These systems lead into the thickets
of refined mental speculations and place the mind before new difficulties. The
chief thing, however, is this: nebulous opinions about the inner life in God,
such as are to be seen in certain theologians who have entered the path of
philosophizing in theology, do not harmonize with the immediate feeling of
reverence, with the awareness and feeling of God's closeness and sanctity, and
indeed, they stifle this feeling.
However, by these considerations we do not at all
deny every kind of development in the sphere of dogma. What, then, is subject
to development in dogmatics?
The history of the Church shows that the quantity
of dogmas, in the narrow sense of the word has gradually increased. It is not
that dogmas have developed, but that the sphere of dogma in the history of the
Church has broadened until it has come to its own limit, given by Sacred
Scripture. In other words, the increase has been in the quantity of the truths
of faith that have received a precise formulation at the Ecumenical Councils,
or in general have been confirmed by Ecumenical Councils. The work of the
Church in this direction has consisted in the precise definition of dogmatic
statements, in their clarification, in showing their basis in the word of God,
in finding their confirmation in Church Tradition, in declaring them obligatory
for all the faithful. In this work of the Church the scope of dogmatic truths always
remains in essence one and the same, but in view of the irruption of unorthodox
opinions and teachings, the Church sanctions some dogmatic statements which are
Orthodox and rejects others which are heretical. One cannot deny that thanks to
such dogmatic definitions the content of faith has become more
clear in the awareness of the people of the Church and in the Church
hierarchy itself.
Further, theological learning itself is subject to
development. Dogmatic theology can use various methods; it can be supplemented
by material for further study; it can make a greater or lesser use of the facts
of exegesis (the interpretation of the text of Sacred Scripture), of Biblical
philology, of Church history, of Patristic writings, and likewise of rational
concepts; it can respond more fully or more timidly to heresies, false
teachings and various currents of contemporary religious thought. But
theological learning (as opposed to theology proper) is an outward subject in
relation to the spiritual life of the Church. It only studies the work of the
Church and its dogmatic and other decrees. Dogmatic theology as a branch of
learning can develop, but it cannot develop and perfect the teaching of the
Church. (One may see an approximate analogy of this in the study of any writer:
Pushkinology, for example, can grow, but from this the sum of the thoughts and
images placed into his work by the poet himself is not increased.) The
flowering or decline of theological learning can coincide or fail to coincide
with the general level, with the rise or decline of spiritual life in the
Church at one or another historical period. The development of theological
learning can be impeded without loss to the essence of spiritual life.
Theological learning is not called to guide the Church in its entirety; it is
proper for it to seek out and to keep strictly to the guidance of the Church's
consciousness.
It is given to us to know what is necessary for
the good of our souls. The knowledge of God, of Divine life and Divine
Providence, is given to men in the degree to which it has an immediate moral
application in life. The Apostle teaches us this when he writes: "According
as His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and
godliness ... giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, and to virtue
knowledge, and to knowledge temperance, and to temperance patience, and to
patience godliness, and to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly
kindness charity" (2 Peter 1:3-7). For the Christian the most
essential thing is moral perfection. Everything else which has been given to
him by the word of God and the church is a means to this fundamental aim.
Return to the first page
