Nikolaos Asproulis & Olga Sevastyanova (eds.), Ex Patribus Lux: Essays on Orthodox !eological Anthropology and Georges Florovsky’s !eology, Volos: Volos Academy Publications, 2021, ISBN: 978-618-5375-12-6 Ionuț Biliuță

 RES 13 (2/2021), p. 364-368 DOI: 10.2478/ress-2021-0035

* Ionu! Biliuta, Gheorghe #incai Institute for Social Sciences and the Humanities,

Romanian Academy, 10A Al. Papiu Ilarian, Tg. Mures, 540074, Mures, Romania,

ionut.biliuta@academia-cj.ro.

Nikolaos Asproulis & Olga Sevastyanova (eds.), Ex Patribus Lux: Essays

on Orthodox theological Anthropology and Georges Florovsky’s theology,

Volos: Volos Academy Publications, 2021, ISBN: 978-618-5375-12-6

Ionu! Biliu!a*

Fr. Georges Florovsky’s (1893-1979) towering personality and his impact on

the development of Orthodox theology in the twentieth century has recently

caught the eyes of church historians and theologians alike. Furthermore,

his particular interest in establishing a clear-cut synthesis in the spirit of the

Church Fathers helped launch the “neo-Patristic synthesis” and the revitalization

of patristic studies throughout all of Christendom. $is collection

of theological essays edited by Nikolaos Asproulis and Olga Sevastyanova

revisits two relevant avenues of research in the contemporary theological milieu,

especially in Eastern Christianity. With a preface by Fr. Andrew Louth,

the collection of essays brings together experienced researchers and young

Ph.D. students in a shared e%ort to appraise recent progress in theological

anthropology and the seminal legacy of Fr. Florovsky. Although the two

topics stand as distinct, the editors successfully bridge the conceptual gaps

between various approaches and the far from all-encompassing, tantalizing

perspectives of contemporary Orthodox theology.

$e &rst section of the book (p. 19-61) discusses the various permutations,

misconceptions, reinterpretations, and supporting evidence relating

to the development of theological anthropology through several approaches

stemming from various intellectual avenues of analysis. $is section comprises

&ve contributions that deal with: the impact of ascetical patterns on the

perceptions of theological anthropology in the views of St. Symeon the New

$eologian († 1022) and St. Sophrony Sakharov († 1993), according to Emil

M. Marginean (p. 19-25); the category of spiritual obedience in the Philokalia

and its relevance for any theological discussion about the creation of man as

discussed by Mihai-Iulian Grobnicu (p. 33-43); and the challenging essay by

Natalia Doran that emphasizes once again the centrality of humanity and its

mediating role between materiality and transcendence (p. 43-51).

One most crucial contribution of this section focuses on the status and

privileged role of man in God’s creation and is authored by Eirini Artemi,

a reputed scholar of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s works and contribution to the

development of Christian doctrine. Entitled “Human Image and Likeness of

365

Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

God in the Anthropology of St. Cyril of Alexandria and his Commentaries

on the Pentateuch,” Artemi’s chapter provides the reader with a complete

outline of Cyrillian theological anthropology which is endowed with “the

Christocentric character” that “gives less emphasis to the creation of man

than to his future salvation through Christ to a Christological ‘refashioning’

of human anthropology.” (p. 28) No wonder that in Cyril’s perception,

in'uenced by ancient Greek philosophy and the language of the Bible, the

categories of image and likeness with God stand as other words for Christ’s

Incarnation and have less to do with the actual process of crafting Adam. (p.

29) According to Dr. Artemi, in Cyril’s terminology, likeness signi&es every

human person’s inner and innate ability to achieve his dei&cation in union

with Christ. At the same time, image implies the similitude between man

and holiness that can be achieved through communion with Christ and the

Holy Spirit (p. 30). $erefore, for the Alexandrian father of the church, the

&gures of the two Adams link, not just two biblical realities (that of creation

of man and atonement), but also the two dimensions of Christological redemption

and pneumatological-driven dei&cation. (p. 31)

Raul-Ovidiu Bodea proposes to the reader another challenging perspective

regarding contemporary theology through the specter of existentialism

that opposed two of the most relevant thinkers of our age: Martin

Heidegger (1889-1976) and Nikolai Berdyaev (1878-1948). Comparison

may seem far-fetched and highly unlikely, however, due to the contextual distance

between the two and their interests in philosophical trends. $rough

the concept of “authenticity” perceived by the author as a litmus test, Bodea

&rst analyses the concept of Heidegger that assigns authenticity a “non-normative”

role, where “authenticity is not equated to the notion of goodness,

and inauthenticity with a notion of badness.” (p. 53) As an attribute of the

Dasein, authenticity is achieved through responsibility and actualizing a potentiality

in its structure. (p. 55) For Berdyaev, who read the &rst works of

Heidegger thoroughly, the discussion about the status of man and his ontological

relation with creation should keep in mind the reality of God and

that the very notion of man is a social construction, although “the individual

person is more valuable than society.” (p. 56) While Heidegger perceived

anxiety as paving the road to authenticity and the actualization of man’s mission,

Berdyaev considers authenticity a creative act that allows any man to

break the chains of worldly anxiety and reach his eschatological potential (p.

57). Accordingly, Bodea introduces his theological resolution for Berdyaev’s

conundrum with Heidegger’s works and existentialism’s main dilemmas:

“for Berdyaev, authenticity would mean becoming divinized in Christ and

through Christ which is the task to be achieved by all of humanity.” (p. 58)

366

Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

$e second section intends to open the 'oor for a relevant discussion

about the intellectual legacy of Fr. Florovsky in the contemporary

theological milieu and his critical reception. (p. 61-116) Composed of &ve

contributions, the &rst section, by Dionysios Skliris, starts with a complete

re-evaluation of the notion of contingency in the theology of creation

in Florovsky’s view. (p. 61-68) Tracking down the sources of Florovsky

in the theological works of Karl Barth (1886-1968), Oscar Cullmann

(1902-1999), Jean Daniélou (1905-1974), and also in the Sophiology of

Sergei Bulgakov (1871-1944), Skliris emphasizes the contingency of creation

to preserve the freedom of divine dignity over the created world.

“Considering the world as ‹contingent’ is tantamount to saying that there

is no inherent reason in Divine Being for its creation, that it could not

have existed at all, the latter being exalted as God’s absolutely free love

towards his creatures.” (p. 62)

Furthermore, in establishing his views on the contingency of the created

order Florovsky took inspiration from the Western Fathers, especially

from Augustine of Hippo (354-430), and Duns Scotus (1265/6-1308)

respectively instead of the usual Byzantine sources to prove the idea that

because of human freedom, creation should be depicted as “radical otherness

in relation to God.” (p. 66) $e only concession to Byzantine theology

and Palamite spirituality relates to his undertaking of the theology of divine

reasons (!"#$%) planted in creation by Divine Wisdom. It leads to a paradox

– transcendent because of their integration in the Logos and immanent due

to His incarnation.

Viorel Coman proposes a critical assessment of Florovsky’s “Christian

Hellenism” by raising awareness among theologians about the problematic

nature of the relation between Christianity and culture on the one hand and

the impossibility of expressing and communicating divine truth through

other idioms and languages of knowledge other than patristic conformity

with the Greek Fathers of the church. (p. 79-89) Coman formulates only two

reasons why the acculturation of the Eastern Christian message in the contemporary

world stands no chance of success. First, according to Coman, the

“escapist attitude” of Florovsky, which was meant to cover up the unpleasant

historical context and the provocations Christianity faces today, privileges

only past ancient and pre-industrial social realities and proves detrimental

to present and future vernaculars. (p. 85) Secondly, Florovsky is unable to

escape the foundational Greek matrix for any future theology both linguistically

and conceptually until the eschaton, a limitation that hinders any actualization

of the message of the Gospel or change in theological reasoning. (p.

86) Furthermore, the exclusivist signi&cance of Christian Hellenism hinders

367

Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

any possibility of developing a dynamic and actual theological idiom, and

Florovsky’s passive attitude should give way to new avenues of research.

Nikolaos Asproulis explores the points of continuity between Fr.

Sergei Bulgakov and Fr. Georges Florovsky and projects these points of continuity

and contingencies onto the main challenges of contemporary theology.

(p. 101-117) By employing Paul Valliere’s distinction between “Church

dogmatics” and „Church and World dogmatics,” Asproulis raises four methodological

points that should realign the perspective for further discussions

about the role of theology in the contemporary world and debates between

Florovsky’s and Bulgakov’s disciples. $e &rst underlines the importance of

Bulgakov’s “humano-theology” in explaining the chasm that seems to describe

God-world relations. Regarding religion in the contemporary world,

Florovsky’s perspective proposes “a theological justi&cation of God in and for

the world,” contrary to any secular project explaining this relationship. (p.

110) Secondly, one of the most striking di%erences between the two relates

to their understanding of the relation between history and nature. According

to Asproulis, Bulgakov wins the debate with Florovsky by developing a “theology

of nature” and, thus, following in the footsteps of medieval scholasticism,

addressing one of the most signi&cant pitfalls of Greek patristics–its

reluctance to attend to the problem of Being. $irdly, with his emphasis

on renewal of the theological approach to the world, Bulgakov’s commitment

to social issues that stemmed from his years as a university professor of

economics a%ected an already strained relationship with the o(cial church

which was more concerned with asceticism and individual redemption. (p.

114) Florovsky, on the other hand, with his &xation on history and personal

responsibility, paved the way for a reconsideration inside the church of the

secular concerns about the main challenges contemporary societies face. In

his &nal point, Asproulis argues that more than Florovsky’s legacy that silently

approved the principal scienti&c dogmas of our age, Bulgakov’s disciples

carefully addressed the relevance of technology, theology, and science at the

beginning of the twenty-&rst century. (p. 115)

Like any collection of essays that unites experienced and young scholars,

there is a feeling of inequality in quantity and essence when reading all

the contributions. Partially a criticism, as previously mentioned, this comment

should also be taken as a positive aspect of the entire project. Another

thing the editors in general and the authors should have paid attention to is

the comparative dimension both on theological grounds and the ecumenical

openness of Eastern Christianity towards other denominations. Even though

there are notable exceptions to the rule (Bodea, Lursmanashvili, Coman,

Sevastyanova, Asproulis), most of the other texts failed to exit their comfort

368

Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

zone and reach for other Christian denominations, alternative theologies, or

even Orthodox theologians.

Overall, the collective e%ort of the editors and authors should be

praised to the fullest. $e cutting-edge points raised in the pages of the book

by some contributors, the intention of moving forward ossi&ed Orthodox

theology in the direction of conceptual as well as ecumenical modernity, and

the determination of instilling a critical spirit towards the dogmatic framework

should represent su(cient argument to read and recommend this book

for various graduate and undergraduate classes in theology, philosophy, and

sociology of religion.