The Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology

2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 1

TheNatureofEasternOrthodoxTheology,

Revd.Prof.AndrewLouth,FBA

LectureattheopeningoftheAmsterdamCentreforEasternOrthodoxTheology

(ACEOT,www.aceot.nl)on28May2010atVUUniversityAmsterdam.

Sixtysixyearsago,intheclosingmonthsoftheSecondWorldWar,alittle

bookwaspublishedwiththetitleEssaisurlathologiemystiquedelglise

dOrient,knowninEnglishasTheMysticalTheologyoftheEasternChurch.1For

manyofus,itwasthisbookthatopenedupthetheologicaltraditionofthe

OrthodoxChurch.WhyLosskyusedthetermmysticaltheologyisnot

entirelyclear.HewashimselfastudentofEckharthisdoctoraldissertation

onEckhartwaspublishedshortlyafterhisuntimelydeath19582sohewas

wellinformedaboutwhattheWesthascalledmysticism,buthisbookisnot

aboutmysticisminthatsense:therearenovisions,norecordsofmystical

1VladimirLossky,EssaisurlathologiemystiquedelglisedOrient,Paris:Aubier,ditionsMontaigne,1944(reissued,withthesamepagination,intheseriesPatrimoinesOrthodoxie,Paris:ditionsduCerf,2005);Englishtranslation,TheMysticalTheologyoftheEasternChurch,CambridgeandLondon:JamesClarke,1957.CambridgeandLondon:JamesClarke,1957.2VladimirLossky,ThologienegativeetconnaissancedeDieuchezMatreEckhart,Paris:J.Vrin,1960.


experiences,noragreatdealonmethodsofprayer,meditationor

contemplationinthatbook.Mostofitlooks,infact,likeatraditionalaccount

ofcentralChristiandoctrines:theTrinity,theIncarnation,themissionofthe

HolySpirit,thelifeoftheChurch.However,intheintroductiontothebook,

heexplainswhatheregardsasthecomplementarityofmysticismand

theology,acomplementaritylargelylostintheWest,sohemaintained,

thoughpreservedbytheEast:whichisthereason,wemaypresume,why

LosskyentitledhisbookMysticalTheology.IntheEast,heclaimed,

mysticismandtheologybelongtogether,inasensethat,Ithink,emerges

clearlyinthefollowingquotationsfromthatintroduction:

Theeasterntraditionhasnevermadeasharpdistinctionbetweenmysticismandtheology;betweenpersonalexperienceofthedivinemysteriesandthedogmaaffirmedbytheChurchToputitanotherway,wemustlivethedogmaexpressingarevealedtruth,whichappearstousasanunfathomablemystery,insuchafashionthatinsteadofassimilatingthemysterytoourmodeofunderstanding,weshould,onthecontrary,lookforaprofoundchange,aninnertransformationofthespirit,enablingustoexperienceitmysticallyThereis,therefore,noChristianmysterywithouttheology;but,aboveall,thereisnotheologywithoutmysticismMysticismisaccordinglytreatedinthepresentworkastheperfectingandcrownofalltheology:astheologyparexcellence.3

3Lossky,MysticalTheology,pp.8f.NotethatintheoriginalFrench,thewordrenderedinEnglishasmysticismislamystique,notperhapsquitethesamething.


Mysticismandtheologyrelateasexperienceandtheory.Butexperienceof

what?UltimatelyofGod,butthatisnotwhereLosskybegins:hebeginsby

speakingofpersonalexperienceofthedivinemysteries,thetermmysteries

beingnotexactlyambiguous,butwithatleasttwoconnotationsmeaning

boththesacramentsoftheChurch,andalsomysterioustruthsaboutthe

Godhead.Thatdoublemeaningisnochancehomonymity;thetwomeaning

arecloselyrelatedforLossky,andfortheOrthodoxChurch,becausethe

mysterioustruthsaboutGodhisexistenceasaTrinityoflove,hiscreationof

theworld,hiscarefortheworldandhisredemptionofit,preeminentlyin

theIncarnationaretruthsthatweexperienceandcelebrateintheDivine

Mysteries,ortheSacramentsoftheChurch.ItisthisthatgivesLosskys

presentationsuchadifferentorientationfromwhatisnormallyassociated

withmysticismintheWest:itisnotdetachedfromdogma,butrootedinthe

dogmatictruthsoftheChristiantradition;itisnotindifferenttoChurch

organization,hierarchyandsacraments,butrootedinthestructuredlifeof

theChurch;itisnotindividualisticindeedindividualismisseentobethe

deepestflawinWesternChristianitybutrootedintheexperienceofthe

eucharisticcommunity,theChurch.AndyetitseemstomethatLossky,in

usingthelanguageofmysticism,remainsopentothesensethatitbearsin

Westernuse,therealizationthat,ifanyoneentersintoaprofoundrelationship

withGodonethatseeksGodforhimselfandisimpatientofsettlingforany

kindofintermediarythentheywillembarkonatransformingexperience,in


whichtheworldwillseemradicallydifferent,perceivedfromtheperspective

ofthedivinelovethatbroughtitintobeing.Losskymakeslittleofthis,butit

seemstomethatheremainsopentothewayinwhichwearecalled

ultimatelytogobeyondanyconventionalcertaintiesandabandonourselves

totheinfinitemysteryofGod.

WhatIwanttodointhislectureisexploresomeofthefeaturesofsucha

mysticaltheology,conceivedofascharacteristicofEasternOrthodox

theology,andIwanttodothatinthewaythatcomesmostnaturallytome,

butwhichisalso,Ibelieve,utterlycharacteristicoftheOrthodoxtraditionof

theology:andthatisbyofferingsomereflectionsonsomeofthosewhomwe

calltheFathers.

IshalltakefourFathersoftheEasterntraditionStAthanasios,StDionysios

theAreopagite,StMaximostheConfessor,andStGregoryPalamaswho

coveraperiodofaboutamillennium,stretchingfromthefourthtothe

fourteenthcentury.

LetusbeginwithStAthanasios,andinparticularwithhisearlytreatiseor

soIwouldstilltakeittobeconsistingofContraGentesandhisfamous,and

incomparable,DeIncarnatione.4Thistwofoldworkisanapology,adefenceof

Christianity,againstobjectionsfrombothJewsandGreeks.Itis,more

4Ihaveusedtheedition,withEnglishtranslation,byRobertW.Thomson:Athanasius,ContraGentesandDeIncarnatione,OxfordEarlyChristianTexts,Oxford:ClarendonPress,1971.


precisely,adefenceofthecross,anapologiacrucis:inthetwofoldwork,

AthanasiosseekstopersuadehisreadersthatChristwastheSaviourofthe

universeandthatthecrosswasnottheruinbutthesalvationofcreation(CG

1),athemehepicksupagainatthebeginningofDeIncarnationewhenhe

referstowhattheJewsslanderandtheGreeksmock,anobviousreferenceto

thefirstchapterof1Corinthiansonthereactiontothewordofthecross(cf.

1Cor.1:225),whichhemakesexplicitbycontrastingwhattheyholdcheap

namelythecrosswithwhatitmakesknown,thedivinityandpowerof

Christ(dI1).Christsdeathonthecrossis,forAthanasios,

,thechiefpointofourfaith(dI19),fortworeasons:first,becauseit

isinhisdeath,triumphingoverdeath,thatChristisrevealedinhisdivinity

foritbelongstoGodtohavethepoweroflifeanddeath;butsecondly,

becauseitisdeaththatsumsupthehumanplightitisdeaththatcastsa

shadowoverhumanlife,qualifyingeverything,threateningeverythingwith

futility.AthanasiossetsallthisinthecontextofGodwhocreatestheuniverse

andcaresforit,ormoredeeplyofGodwhoistheonlysourceofbeingand

reality.HisexpositionatthebeginningofContraGentesandrepeatedatthe

beginningofDeIncarnationeisbasedonhisradicalunderstandingofGods

creativeactivity.Pickingupideasthathadbeendevelopedtentativelyinthe

ChurchsstruggleagainsttheGnostics,Athanasiosdevelopshis

understandingofcreationoutofnothing:thesolesourceofbeingisGod,if

weturnawayfromGod,weturnawayfrombeing,andwediscoverthe


realityoflifeapartfromGod,whichisdeath.Hepresentstheuniverseas

flowingfromthecreativewillofGod,withnorealityotherthanwhatit

derivesfromhim;hepresentshumankindashavingaspecialroleincreation,

sinceithasbeencreatedinaccordancewiththeimageofGod,thatisthe

WordofGod;invirtueofbeingintheimage,humanbeingsareabletolook

backtothesourceofbeing,God,theycancontemplatehim,theylivealifein

touchwithgenuinereality,withthewaythingsare.Itisnatural,itisobvious:

andyethumankindfailedtoliveoutsuchalife.Theyturnedawayfrom

God:butwhere?Theybegantoconsiderthemselves,asAthanasiosputsit

(CG3),theybegantoseelifeinrelationtothemselves,andindoingthisthey

lostcontactwiththeonlysourceofbeingwhichisGod.Butthisselforiented

lifeisorientedtonothing,forthereisnosourceofbeingapartfromGod,and

feedingonnothing,itfindsitselfmovingtowardsnothingness,whichis

experiencedasdeath.Deathbecomesthehorizonforhumanlife,andhuman

beingsarehenceforthbornintoaworldmarkedbydeathanddissolutionor

corruptionand.Thisishumanlifeasweknowit:living

andpartlyliving,asthewomenlamentinT.S.Eliotsplay,Murderinthe

Cathedrallivingandpartlyliving,andalwaysundertheshadowofdeath.5

Itisdeaththatneedstobedealtwith,accordingtoAthanasios;itisatthe

momentofdeaththatweneedtofindhope.Thecross,whichlookslikejust

5SeeT.S.Eliot,CollectedPlays,London:Faber&Faber,1962,pp.1516,repeatedly,andechoedlateronpp.29,48.


anotherexampleofthewayinwhichdeathfrustratesthehopesofhumanlife,

ishoweveradifferentdeath:itisdeaththatswallowsupdeath,itisadeath

thatoffersonceagainlifeasoriginallyofferedtohumankind,thelife

accordingtoGod,(dI5).Butthecrossachievesthis,

becausetheonewhodiedonthecross,theIncarnateWord,isGod,beyond

thereachofdeath:ratherthandeathswallowinguptheWord,asitswallows

usup,deathitselfisswallowedup.InAthanasioswords,Andthetwo

thingsoccurredsimultaneouslyinamiraculousmanner:thedeathofallwas

fulfilledintheLordsbody,andalsodeathandcorruptionweredestroyed

becauseoftheWordwhowasinit(dI20).

ThatisarathercondensedaccountofAthanasiosapologiacrucis;hehasalot,

too,tosayaboutthewayinwhichtherestorationoftheimageinthecrucified

OnerestorestoustheparadisalknowledgeofGod,butwhatIwanttodraw

yourattentiontoinallthisisthewayinwhichAthanasiostheologyisabout

anengagementbetweenGodandhiscreation,betweenGodandhumankind.

Itisnotaboutsometheologicaltruths,butratheraboutsomethingthat

happensahappening,anevent,intowhichwemayenter.Youwillrecall

thatAthanasiosgoesontoenlisttheevidenceofChristianmartyrdomandthe

Christianpursuitofvirginityaswaysinwhichlifeindefianceofdeathhas

becomeapossibilityforChristians.Itisstriking,Ithink,thattheChristian

creedsthatbegintoemergeinAthanasioslifetimearenotlistsoftheological


truths,butanaccountofGodsengagementwiththecosmos,centrally

throughtheIncarnation.Theextentofthatengagementcomesoutinwhatis

perhapsthemostfamoussentenceofDeIncarnatione:forhebecamehuman

thatwemightbecomeGod,

(dI54).ForAthanasios,thereisatwofoldmovement:thatof

Godtowardsus,wherebyGodcomestolivetoexperiencehumanlife,and

ouransweringmovementtowardsGod,wherebywecometoliveto

experiencehisdivinelife.Theboldnessofthatclaimremainscharacteristic

ofByzantinetheology.

LetusmoveontoDionysiostheAreopagite,thedivineDenys.Itisthis

convictionofengagementthatliesattheheartofDionysiostheology,buthe

exploresaspectsofthatengagementwhichremainimplicitinAthanasios

account.Thereis,Iwouldargue,thoughIknowthatnotallscholarswould

agreewithme,thesamefundamentalaffirmationofcreationoutofnothing:

thecreatedordersimplyexistsbecauseofGod;moreexactly,forDionysios,it

existstomanifestGodthewholecosmos,forDionysios,isatheophany,a

manifestationofthegloryofGod.Butamanifestationforwhat?orto

whom?IfGodhascreatedtheuniverseoutofnothing,thenthereisnothing

towhichthisuniversecouldmanifestGod.ButanythingotherthanGodis

fullofdistinctionsanddifferences:thereislightandshade,therearedifferent

levels,somehigher,somelower,thereiswhatismanifold,thereis


multiplicity.Invirtueofitsmultiplicity,thecosmoscanbethoughtofas

Godsmanifestationofhimselfwithinthecosmos,andtothecosmos.

Furthermore,DionysiosneversaysanythingabouttheFall,justashenever

explicitlyspeaksofcreationoutofnothing,butwhenhethinksofthenature

ofthecosmos,heseesthemanifoldnessofthecosmosassomethingthatis

duetoitsbeingcreatedoutofnothing,andthereforenotGod,butalso

somethingthatmanifeststheconsequencesoftheFall:notthattheFallisa

FallintomultiplicityDionysiosisaChristianatheart,notsimplya

Neoplatonist(though,again,Iacknowledgethattherearescholarswhothink

otherwise)butaFallinwhichmultiplicityanddifferenceprovidetheraw

material,sotospeak,fortheoppositionandfrustration,andsheer

destructiveness,thatcharacterizethefallenworld.However,forDionysios,

thesedifferencesanddistinctionsmakepossiblewhatonemightthinkofas

structuresofthemanifoldthattemper,asitwere,thedivinemanifestation,so

thatwecangraspsomethingofit.Thetheophany,whichthecosmosis,is

thenatheophanyinandtothecosmos.Moreradically,Dionysiosbelieves

thatdistinction,difference,heightanddepth,transparencyandobscuritycan

makepossibleacosmosinwhichweareactivelydrawntowardstheburning

centreofGodslove,andalsohavetheopportunitytodrawothersto

experiencethatlove.Thisiswhathemeansbyhierarchy:


ahierarchyisasacredorder,astateofunderstandingandanactivityapproximatingascloselyaspossibletothedivine.AnditisraisedtotheimitationofGodinproportiontotheenlightenmentsdivinelygiventoit.ThebeautyofGodsosimple,sogood,somuchthesourceofperfectioniscompletelyuncontaminatedbydissimilarity.Itreachesouttogranteverybeing,sofaraseachiscapable,ashareoflight(CH3.1).6

Thus,forDionysios,hierarchiesarenotmainlyaboutrank,order,

subordination(heinventedtheword,soweshouldsticktohisown

definition!),theyareaboutreachingoutintomultiplicityanddrawing

everythingbackintounionwith,andassimilationto,thesimplicityand

beautyofGod.Beautyisakeytohowthisworks:headoptsPlatoslinkingof

theGreekwordforbeauty,,withtheGreekverbtocall,

beautycallsoutandcallsbacktoitself;itisnotsomethingsimplytogazeat,it

isavisionthatwearecalledontofollow.

InhistwotreatisesonTheCelestialHierarchyandTheEcclesiasticalHierarchy,

Dionysiosdepictsthehierarchicalstructuresofthecosmos.Thecelestial

realmconsistsofnineranksofheavenlybeings,arrangedthreebythree:at

thetop,indescendingorder,Seraphim,Cherubim,Thrones;inthemiddle,

Dominions,Powers,Authorities;andatthebottom,Principalities,

Archangels,Angels.Thisarrangement,threebythree,disclosessomething

6TranslationsfromPseudoDionysius:TheCompleteWorks,translatedbyColmLuibheid,MahwahNJ:PaulistPress,1987,sometimesmodified.


elseaboutthehierarchy:itisnotsimplyaladder,withthreesteps,asitwere,

ratherhierarchyconsistsofthreephasesorstages,andthethreeranks,and

threelevelsofranks,symbolizethis.Thesephasesare,workingupwardsthis

time,purification,illuminationandperfectionorunion:theprocessof

assimilationtoGodthatthehierarchieseffectbeginswithpurification,

continueswithillumination,andfinallyreachesperfection(orcompletion:

)orunion.Thehierarchiesare,asDionysiossaidinthepassage

alreadyquoted,notjustamatterofrank,butofunderstandingandactivity.It

isinterestingtonote,inpassing,thatthiscelestialcosmosis,forDionysios,

constitutedbyangelicbeings;heisnottalkingabouttheheavenlybodiesin

thesenseofstarsandplanets.InthisDionysioswasnotatallunusual

amongstChristians;thearthistorian,ThomasMathews,hasnotedthat

Christianart,evenwhereitseemstobedevelopingearlierpaganthemes,

tendstodispensewiththesignsoftheZodiac,andturntheheavenlyrealm

intotherealmofangels.7

Insomeways,itseemstomethattheCelestialHierarchyismostlyconcerned

toestablishtheprincipleofhierarchyasthewayinwhichthecreatedrealm

inthissimplifiedcaseofthepurelyspiritualrealmoftheangelsisakindof

gradedtheophany,drawingeverythinguptocloserandcloserassimilationto

God.Itexemplifiesinapurified,concentratedformwhatisinvolvedin 7SeeThomasF.Mathews,TheClashofGods.AReinterpretationofChristianArt,PrincetonUniversityPress,1993,14850.


comingclosetoGod.Thenameoftheseraphimfornamesaresignificant

forDionysiossignifiesfiremakersorcarriersofwarmth,andwhatthis

meansis:aperennialcirclingaroundthedivinethings,penetratingwarmth,

theoverflowingheatofamovementwhichneverfaltersandneverfails,a

capacitytostamptheirownimageonsubordinatesbyarousinganduplifting

inthemtooalikeflame,thesamewarmth(CH7.1).Itisapictureof

unwaveringcontemplativeattentiontothedivine,paradoxicallycombined

withacapacitytopassonthisbeingengrossedinthedivine.FrAlexander

Golitzin,hassuggestedthatthemodelfortheseangelicbeingsisnot,as

scholarsusuallyassume,theintermediarybeingsofcontemporary

Neoplatonism,buttheinstitutionofthemonasticelder,whodoesnotstand

betweenhisdisciplesandthedivine,butexemplifiesaclosenesstothedivine,

andaknowledgeofwhatisneededinapproachingthedivine,fromwhichhis

disciplescanlearn.TouseanEnglishidiom:comingclosetoGodis

somethingnottaught,butcaught.

Itisthishierarchicalactivitythatis,thiswayofpurification,illumination

andunionthatleadstoassimilationtoGodthatisdealtwithmore

practicallyinTheEcclesiasticalHierarchy.Thisisatreatisethatrevolvesround

aseriesofchurchservices,andthroughthemseekstoexpoundhow

experienceofthesedivinemysteriesdrawshumanbeingsintounionwith

God.Ifoneconcentratesonthenotionofhierarchyasorderedranks,then


therearesomeodditiesaboutthistreatise,forthehierarchiesseemstoconsist

oftwosocialhierarchiesranksofhumanbeingsholdingecclesiastical

officeandthreesacraments;thetwohumanhierarchiesbeingthethreefold

orderofbishops,priestsanddeacons,andathreefoldorderoflaityasmonks,

ordinarylaity(calledthecontemplativeorder,thosewhowatch)andthose

notornotyetadmittedtoeucharisticcommunion,whilethethreesacraments

arebaptism,eucharist,andthesacramentoftheconsecrationoftheholy

chrism.ThesehierarchiesarediscussedintheEcclesiasticalHierarchy,butthe

treatiseitself,afteranintroductorychapter,consistsofsixchapters,eachin

threeparts,thefirstdealingwiththeriteitself,thesecondexplainingina

provisionalwayitsmeaning,whilethefinalpart,calledtheoriaor

contemplation,delvesmoredeeply,andatsomelengthintoitsdeeper

meaning.Thesixchaptersconcern:theriteofbaptism,theeucharisticrite,the

riteofconsecrationofchrismormyron;then,theordinationservice,theriteof

monasticconsecration,andtheburialservice.Whatwehavehereismorelike

atreatiseofliturgicaltheology:theritesandceremoniesoftheChurcharethe

wayinwhichthechurch,asagatheredcommunityledbyitsbishop,

celebratesandexperiencestheengagementbetweenGodandhumankind

thatisrecapitulatedintheIncarnation.SomethingthatDionysiosconveys

withrarepoweristhewayinwhichourresponsetoGodsloveforhuman

kindisnotsimplyasindividuals,butaspartofacommunity,astructured


society.Wearenotonourown,butareborneupbytheprayersandpresence

ofothers.

ThereisanothersidetoDionysiosunderstandingofmysticaltheology,

thoughitseemstomeverycloselyrelated.Thetreatisesonthehierarchies

envisageamysticaltheologyasawayofparticipatingthroughthe

celebrationofsacramentsandliturgicalceremoniesinthetruthsthatthese

sacramentscelebrate.ThesacramentsareacontinuationoftheIncarnation,

becausetheyextendtous,hereandnow,thatmovementofGodtowardsus

accomplishedpreeminentlyintheIncarnation.AsGodbecamehumanthat

wemightbecomeGod,sothatdivineassumptionofhumanityisextendedto

usintheEucharist,sothatwe,throughcommunion,mightgrowmoredeeply

intothedivinelife.InhisaccountofthevariousritesoftheChurch,

Dionysiosshowshowintheprayersandpsalmsandhymnsthataccompany

theseceremonieswepraiseGod,andevokehimbythenamesthathehas

giventous.TheothertreatisesthatsurviveoftheDionysiancorpusaremore

closelyconcernedwithwhatisinvolvedinsuchuseofdivinenames.Howdo

weapplysuchnamestoGod?Bywhatrightcanwesayanythingofthe

transcendentone?Toexplainthis,aseveryoneknows,Dionysiosintroduced

intoChristiantheologythelanguageofaffirmativeandnegativetheology,or

tousemoredirectlytheGreekterms:kataphaticandapophatictheology.Itis

quiteeasytogiveaprovisionalaccountofwhatDionysiosmeans.In


kataphatic,oraffirmative,theology,wetakethenamesthatGodhasgivenus

intheScripturesandaffirmthemofHim.WesaythatGodisgood,andjust,

andloving,andsoon.Andwearerighttodoso,becauseGodhasrevealed

himselfassuch.ButisGodgood,justandlovinginthewaythatweaffirm

theseterms?No,forGodisbeyondanyconceptionthatwemighthaveof

him,andtoexpressthatwemustuseapophatic,ornegative,theology,and

denythatGodisgood,justandloving.However,thisdenialisaspecialkind

ofdenial:wearenotsayingthatGodlacksthesequalities,wearerather

sayingthathetranscendsthesequalities.Considerthedifferentwaysin

whichhemightsaythatsomeoneisnotintelligent:wemight,andnormally

do,meanthatsomeonelacksintelligence;butwemightmeanthattheterm

intelligentisaratherfeeblewayofdescribinghimheisnotintelligent,hes

agenius!Itisthatlatterkindofdenialthatweuseinapophatictheology,

exceptthatherewehavenootherwayofsayingwhatwedomean:wecant

makeclearinwordswhatwemeanbysayingthatGoddoesnotlack

goodness,say,butthathetranscendsit.Dionysioshasseveralwaysof

explainingwhythisisthecaseinrelationtoGod.Kataphatictheology,for

instance,canbejustified,bothbyrevelation,butmoretheoreticallybythefact

thatGodisthecauseofall;andbecauseDionysiosaccepts,withhis

contemporaryNeoplatonists,thatthecausecontainseverythingfoundinthe

effect,thenitmustfollowthatanythingwefindincreatures(exceptwhenwe

meanthatwedontfinditincreatures,thatis,whenweregisteralackin


creatures)wecanalso,insomesense,ascribetoGod.Butapophatictheology

canbejustifiedforthesamereason:forifGodisthecauseofall,thenhedoes

notbelongtotheall,heisnotoneof,thethingsthatare,andifthat

isso,theneverythingwecanaffirmofcreatureswemustdenyofGod.So

Dionysiosreachestheconclusion:thereforeeveryattributemaybe

predicatedofhimandyetheisnotanyonething(DN5.8).

Thislanguageofkataphaticandapophatictheologycansoundlikesomekind

oflogicalcalculusenablingustoascertainhowourlanguageappliestoGod;

thisiscertainlyanaccusationmadebysomeOrthodoxaboutthewayin

whichDionysiosideasonthepredicationofdivineattributeswere

interpretedintheWest.ButthatsuchanattemptisnotwhatDionysioshad

inmindisevident,Ithink,fromtheshortestofhistreatises,theoneactually

calledTheMysticalTheology.Thattreatisebeginswithaprayertobebrought

beyondanythingwecanknoworapprehend,beyondanythingwemight

glimpsefromtheScriptures,towhathecallsthedazzlingdarknessofa

hiddensilence,wherethemysteriesofGodsWordwillcompletelyfillour

sightlessmindswithtreasuresbeyondallbeauty.WhatDionysiosis

speakingofhereissomethingthatliesbeyondthefurthestreachofour

comprehension,andthecontextofprayerisimportant:heisnotconcerned

withsomelogicalexerciseintheologicalpredication,forprayerisaformof

addresstoaGodwholistens.Infact,inthistreatise,thecomplementarityof


kataphaticandapophatictheologyfindsitscontext,notinsomelogical

puzzle,butinwhatonemightcallthedirectiononeisfacing.TheWordof

Godisvastandminuscule;theGospeliswiderangingandyetrestricted(MT

1.3).WecanusethewordofGodtospeaktoothers,tosaysomethingto

themoftheloveofGod;butwecanalsousethewordofGodtoaddressGod

himself.Inchapter3ofthistreatise,thisquestionoforientationcomestothe

fore.Therehespeaksofthewayinwhich,ashetriestoexplainthenatureof

GodandtherevelationofGodthroughtheimagesoftheScriptures,his

languagebecomesmoreandmoreabundant,butthemorewetakeflight

upward,themoreourwordsareconfinedtotheideaswearecapableof

forming;sothatnowasweplungeintothatdarknesswhichisbeyond

intellect,weshallfindourselvesnotsimplyrunningshortofwordsbut

actuallyspeechlessandunknowing.Aboutthirtyyearsago,PaulRorem

pointedoutinabrief,butcompelling,paper,thatthelanguageDionysios

usestodescribeMosesascentofMountSinaiinchapter1oftheMystical

Theologyisculticlanguage:thelanguageusedtodescribethewaythepriest

purifieshimselfandentersthesanctuary,notjustintheBible,butalsointhe

Christianliturgicaltextsofthefifthandsixthcenturies.8WhatDionysiosis

talkingaboutisnotprimarilymysticalexperienceinthelatersensethough

Idonotthinkheexcludesit,nordoIthinkthatthosewhofoundinthistiny

8PaulRorem,MosesastheParadigmfortheLiturgicalSpiritualityofPseudoDionysius,StudiaPatristica18/2(1989),2759


treatiseaguidetoabandonmenttotheinfiniteabyssoftheGodheadwere

perverselymistakenbutthedifferencebetweentheproclamationand

celebrationofthefaithoftheGospel,andourturningtowardsGodinprayer,

whetherliturgicalorprivate.Andtheyobviouslybelongtogether:theGodof

whomwespeakwhenproclaimingtheGospelmustbetheGodtowhomwe

speakinthequietnessofprayer.Ifthesecomeapart,thenourwhole

understandingofGod,ourwholetheology,willunravel.Dionysios

distinctionbetweenkataphaticandapophatictheologyis,likemanyother

distinctionscharacteristicofByzantinetheology,adistinctionthatholds

together,ratherthanholdsapart.Anotherimplicationofthismutual

implicationofkataphaticandapophatictheologyisthat,becausekataphatic

theologyisrootedinapophatictheology,thelanguageofkataphatictheology

isfreedtobecelebratory.Dionysiosseldomspeaksofpredicatingnamesof

God;heusuallysaysthatwepraiseGodbyusingthesenames.Theway

thesenamesapplytoGodismorethansimplepredication:itexpressesa

joyfulcelebrationofGodwhohasrevealedhimselftous,increationandin

revelation;itisthefruitofafundamentalattitudetowardsGodofpraiseand

thanksgiving.Thisgroundingofkataphatictheologyinapophatictheology

alsomeansthatitisdisposedtouseawealthofimageryinrelationtoGod.

AsthemodernGreektheologian,ChristosYannaras,hasputit:The

apophaticattitudeleadsChristiantheologytousethelanguageofpoetryand


imagesfortheinterpretationofdogmasmuchmorethanthelanguageof

conventionallogicandschematicconcepts.9

OneofStMaximostheConfessorsshortestworksishiscommentaryonthe

DivineLiturgy,knownastheMystagogia.Itisnaturalworktoturntoafter

discussingDionysiostheAreopagite,forMaximospresentsitassimplya

supplementtowhatDionysioshadtosayinhisEcclesiasticalHierarchy.Here,

Ionlywanttocommentbrieflyonsomeaspectsofthiswork,whichbecame

immenselypopularintheByzantinetradition,andinspiredawholeseriesof

worksthat,likeit,commentontheactionsoftheByzantineliturgy.WhatI

wanttodrawattentiontoherearethechaptersthatprefaceMaximos

commentsontheparticularactionsoftheDivineLiturgy.Thefirstseven

chapterssetupaseriesofparallels,orimagesashecallsthem.TheChurch,

hesays,isanimageandfigureofGod,forboththeChurchandGoddraw

thingsintounity:Godthroughhiscreationandprovidence,theChurchas

aplaceofreconciliation.Hethengoesontoapplythistothechurchbuilding

itself,dividedasitwas(andstillis,inOrthodoxchurches,veryvisibly)into

thenave(thenaosortemple),accessibleonlytothefaithful,andthesanctuary

(hierateion),accessibleonlytothepriestsandministers.Thisdivision

symbolizesthedivisionofthecosmosintothevisibleandtheinvisiblerealm.

9ChristosYannaras,TheElementsofChristianTheology(Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1991),p.17.


Inbothcases,thisisadivisionthatdoesnotsimplyseparate,butholds

together,sothatthelowerreflectsthehigher,andthehigherisexpressedin

thelower.Themovementoftheliturgyisoutfromthesanctuaryintothe

nave,andthenbackintothesanctuary,drawingeverythingallourprayers,

hopesandlongingsintothehiddenunityofGod.Furtherchaptersapply

thisdivisiontothevisibleworld,wherethedistinctionbetweensanctuary

andnavereflectsthedivisionbetweenheavenandearth;tothehumanbeing,

wherethedistinctionisfoundinthedifferencebetweensoulandbody;tothe

soulitself,wherethedistinctionisfoundthistimeinthedistinctionwithin

thesoulbetweenthecontemplativeandactiveaspectsoftheintellectthe

contemplativeintellectbeingdirectedtowardstruth,theactiveintellect

towardsgoodness,sothatgoodnessisseenasamanifestationoftruth,and

alsoasanantechamber,asitwere,ofthetruth.Twofurtherchapters(6and

7)suggestfurtherparallels:theparallelbetweenScriptureandthehuman

beingOldandNewTestament,andtheliteralandthespiritualmeaning,

reflectingthedistinctioninthehumanbetweenbodyandsoul;andfinallythe

parallelbetweenthecosmosandthehuman,theinvisibleandthevisible

beingreflectedinthehumansoulandbody.Infact,intheselasttwo

chapters,whatMaximossaysisevenmoredirect:howScriptureissaidtobe

ahumanbeing(),andhowthecosmosissaidtobeahumanbeing

andthehumanbeingacosmos.Inthislatter,wehave,ofcourse,theancient

ideaofthehumanasamicrocosm;andtheideathattheHolyScriptureis


modelledonthehumanisthebasisofOrigensunderstandingofScripturein

book4ofDePrincipiis,which,ofcourse,formedamajorpartofthePhilokalia,

compiledbythetwoCappadocianFathers,StBasiltheGreatandStGregory

theTheologian.IfbothHolyScriptureandthecosmosaresaidtobe

,thenthereisacertainidentitybetweenScriptureandthecosmos:

somethingMaximosdrawsoutelsewherewhenhesuggeststhatboth

Scriptureandthecosmoscanbeseentoconsistofwords,thewritten

wordsofScriptureandthehiddenofthecosmosinbothofwhichwe

findourselveshearingthe,theWordofGodHimself(cf.Ambigua10.

18:PG91.1128D1133A).

ThefirstpointtonoticeaboutallthisisthewayinwhichMaximossetsupa

wholestructureofmutualreference:whattakesplaceinthechurchbuilding

hasitsmeaninginthecontextofadivisionbetweensanctuaryandnavethat

appliesfromthecosmostotheinnerdepthsofthehumanpersonthe

significanceoftheDivineLiturgyrunsthroughthiswholegamutofreference.

ItpicksupthefundamentalmovementoftheScriptures,betweenOldand

New,surfaceanddeepermeaning;itthenreflectsthisontothemajestyofthe

cosmosandintothehiddendepthsofthesoul.Maximoshassetup

somethinglikeasetofChineseboxes,eachcontainingtheother,eachrelated

totheother.Theextremesarethecosmosandtheindividualsoul;theaction

ofthedivineliturgyconcernsbothandholdsthemtogether.This


correspondstooneofthemoststrikingfeaturesofthekindofByzantine

theologicalsynthesiswefindinMaximos:thewayinwhichthedivine

economyhasnotjustahumanbutacosmicsignificance,andcombinedwith

thatthewayinwhichthehumantaskofrespondingtoGodsactivity,which

involvesademandingasceticism,isintegratedintohistheologicalvision.In

thisMaximoswasrecapitulatingemphasesalreadypresentintheGreek

theologicaltradition,butinhisvisionthecosmic,thehistorical,theliturgical

andtheasceticarealldrawntogetherandallmutuallyinformoneanother.It

wasinaccordancewiththisvisionthatthechurchbuildingthroughoutthe

Byzantineworldcametobeseenasamicrocosmanddecoratedassuch,with

theiconofChristinthedomeofthechurchgazingdownontheworshippers

below,apparentlysupportedbythelightpenetratingthechurchfromthe

windowsatthebaseofthedome.InparticipatingintheDivineLiturgy,the

ByzantineChristianwasconsciousthathewasparticipatinginsomethingof

cosmicsignificance.Itisindirectcontinuitywiththistraditionthatmodern

Orthodoxyhasreadilyfoundwaysofvoicingecologicalconcerns.Butthis

cosmicemphasisisnotdetachedfromthelifeoftheordinaryChristian,for

thesameliturgicalactionshinesintothedepthofhissoul,andrevealsthe

dimensionsofanasceticprogrammeofpurification,illuminationandunion

thatbecomes,inthatlight,notjustamatterofpersonalcarefortheselfsouci

desoi,inFoucaultsphrasebutameansbywhicheachChristianisenabled

toparticipateinthereconciliationandrestorationofthecreatedcosmos,setat


oddswithitselfbyhumansin.ItisinthesetermsthatMaximosdescribesthe

individualascetictask:

Thehumanisamysticalchurch,becausethroughthenavewhichishisbodyhebrightensbyvirtuetheasceticforceofthesoulbytheobservanceofthecommandmentsinmoralwisdom.ThroughthesanctuaryofhissoulheconveystoGodinnaturalcontemplationthroughreasontheprinciplesofsensepurelyinspirit,cutofffrommatter.Finally,throughthealtarofthemindhesummonsthesilenceaboundinginsongintheinnermostrecessesoftheunseenandunknownutteranceofdivinitybyanothersilence,richinspeechandtone.Andasfarasispossibleforhumans,hedwellsfamiliarlywithinmysticaltheologyandbecomessuchasisfittingforonemadeworthyofhisindwellingandheismarkedwithhisdazzlingsplendour(Mystagogia4).10

WhenwehearStMaximosspeakingofthesilenceaboundinginsongandthe

innermostrecessesoftheunseenandunknownutteranceofdivinity,we

wouldnotbemistakeninhearingthelanguageofthoseloversofGod,whom

wecallthemystics.Furthermore,thoselastwordsevoketheimageof

transfiguration:oneofthemostpowerfulwaysofexpressingdeification,the

transformationofthehumanintothedivine.

IhaveleftverylittletimeformyfinalFather,StGregoryPalamas,the

fourteenthcenturydefenderoftheAthonitemonks,orhesychasts,who

10G.C.BertholdstranslationinMaximustheConfessor,SelectedWritings,MahwahNJ:PaulistPress,1985,190(slightlymodified).


claimedintheirprayertobeholdtheuncreatedlightoftheGodheadandfind

themselvestransfiguredinit.ButitisjustonesentenceofGregorysthatI

wanttoreflecton,orevenonlypartofasentence.Attheverybeginningof

thecontroversythattoreaparttheintellectualsocietyoftheailingByzantine

Empire,rapidlyfallingtotheadvanceoftheTurksanditselfrentbycivilwar,

GregoryremarkedinalettertoBarlaam,thechiefofhisopponentsatthat

time:

ItisnotsafeforthosewhodonotknowhowtospeaktoGodtospeakaboutGod,norforthosetojudgeabouttheimmateriallightwhodonotknowwhatcanbeapprehendedbeyondthelight,andhavenotbeeninitiatedintotheintellectualpartofthesoulandthelifehiddeninChristbythetrueandintellectuallight,ashavingtrulyfoundandbeenraisedtothefirstresurrection.11

ItisnotsafeforthosewhodonotknowhowtospeaktoGodtospeakabout

God.IfwedonotknowhowtospeaktoGod,thentheGodaboutwhomwe

speakwillbenomorethanaconcept.Apophatictheology,Ihavesuggested,

isDionysiostermfortheexperienceofgoingbehindwhatwesayaboutGod

andseekingtorisetoGodhimself.RisetoGod:thatisthemetaphorwe

naturallyuse,butwhatwemeanisturntoGodandseekhimdirectlyand

that,astheGospelconstantlyremindsus,canbothmeansomekindof

seclusion(whenyoupray,gointoyourchamberandseekyourFatherwhois 11Palamas,Ep.1toBarlaam41(GregoryPalamas,I,ed.P.K.Chrestou[Thessaloniki,1962],pp.2489).


insecret),butalsowillingnesstoencounterGodintheleastoftheselittle

ones.Thisissomethingweneedtoremember,fortheentryintothe

dazzlingdarkness,whereweshallbeoverwhelmedbythelightofGod,is

mainlyamatterofturningawayfromourconceptsandstrategies,thewaysin

whichwemakeourselvesathomeintheworld,andseekingtoenterthe

worldasGodcreatedit;butthereismorethisdazzlingdarknessis

ultimatelyoverwhelmingandalterstheverywayweperceiveGodandthe

world,whichisperhapstheheartofwhatismeantbythemystical,inthe

waythewordhascometousedintheWest.

Anillustrationaparableofwhatthisentailscanbefoundinthestorythe

ElderZossimatellsofhisolderbrotherMarkel,whodiedayoungmanof

consumption.12Beforehisillness,hehadlosthisfaith,andseemedtotake

delightinupsettinghismotherandtheservantsandtheyoungZossima

himselfwithhisstridentrejectionoftheFaithandreligiouspractice.Inthe

springoftheyearhedied,hismotherlearntthathisconsumptionwasserious

andthathewouldsoondie.ShetriedtopersuadeMarkeltoobserveLent

andtakecommunion.Tostartwithheangrilyrejectedthis,hurtinghis

grievingmother.ButduringHolyWeek,hehadachangeofheartandstarted

togotochurch,thoughsayingtohismotherthathewasdoingitonlyfor

12FyodorDostoevsky,TheBrothersKaramazov,PartII,BookSix,Chapter2(quotationstakenfromthetranslationbyRichardPevear&LarissaVolokhonsky,London:EverymansLibrary,1997,28790).


yoursake,mother,togiveyoujoyandpeacewhichupsethismothereven

more,asshesensedthatheknewhewasclosetodeath.Hequicklygotworse

andhadtoconfessandreceivecommunionathomeinbed.Achangecame

overhim:frombrutallyrejectingreligion,hewelcomeditwhenhisnanny

wantedtolighttheiconlamp.Zossimasaysheremembershimsitting,quiet

andmeek,sickbuthiscountenanceglad,joyful.Hismotherisglad,but

alsosorrowful,asshecanseehowmuchheissufferingfromfeverand

coughing,andthathehaslittletimetolive.Markeltriestocomforthis

mother:Mama,donotweep,lifeisparadise,andweareallinparadise,but

wedonotwanttoknowit,andifwedidwanttoknowit,tomorrowthere

wouldbeparadisetheworldover.Buthealsosays:Ishallalsotellyou,dear

mother,thateachofusisguiltyofeverythingbeforeeveryone,andImostof

all.Hismotherproteststhattherearemurderersandrobbers,farmoreguilty

thanhim.Asheseekstoexplain,thepeopleroundhimthinkheisslipping

intodelirium.Hegoeson:BirdsofGod,joyfulbirds,you,too,mustforgive

me,becauseIhavealsosinnedbeforeyou.Zossimacommentsthatnoone

couldunderstandthis,thathisweepingmotherprotestedthathetooktoo

manysinsonhimself.Dearmother,hesaid,myjoy,Iamweepingfrom

gladness,notfromgrief;Iwanttobeguiltybeforethem,onlyIcannotexplain

ittoyou,forIdonotevenknowhowtolovethem.Letmebesinfulbefore

everyone,butsothateveryonewillforgiveme,andthatisparadise.AmInot

inparadisenow?


Therearetwothingsthatstrikemeaboutthisstory.First,Markeltakes

communion,notoutofrealconviction,butoutofpityforhisgrieving

motherandwiththatlittleactofhumilityandrepentance,hefindsthatthe

gatesofrepentanceswingopen,andheentersparadise.Thesenseofbeingin

paradise,howeverandthisismysecondpointisnotjustmanifestinhis

seeingnatureinallitsbeauty,butinhissenseofguiltineverythingbefore

everyone,inhisseekingforgivenessfromeveryone,eventhebirds.

Thisseemstomeaparableofwhatisreallymeantbyapophatictheology

ForthewaytoGodturningtoGodhimselfbywayofwhatDionysioscalled

apophatictheologyisbywayofrepentance,bylettinggoofourwaysof

makingsomethingofGod,andallowingourselvestobemadesomethingby

Godhimself.AsVladimirLosskyputit:

TheapophaticwayofEasterntheologyistherepentanceofthehumanpersonbeforethefaceofthelivingGod.Itistheconstanttransformationofthecreaturetendingtowardsitscompleteness:towardsthatunionwithGodwhichisbroughtaboutthroughdivinegraceandhumanfreedom.ButthefulnessofGodhead,theultimatefulfilmenttowardwhichallcreatedpersonstendisrevealedintheHolySpirit.ItisHe,theMystagogueoftheapophaticway,whosenegationsattestthepresenceoftheUnnameable,theUncircumscribed,theabsolutePlenitudeTheapophaticattitudeinwhichonecanseethefundamentalcharacterofalltheologicalthoughtwithintheEasterntradition,isanunceasingwitnessrenderedtotheHolySpiritwhomakesupalldeficiencies,causesalllimitationstobeovercome,confersupontheknowledgeofthe


Unknowablethefulnessofexperience,andtransformsthedivinedarknessintolightwhereinwehavecommunionwithGod.13

Here,itseemstome,wefindtheheartofthemysticaltheologyoftheEastern

Church.

13Lossky,op.cit.,pp.238f.

Documents

The Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology