Book Review: The Teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church
For the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
The Synod of Bishops has
delegated me to prepare a review of the book by the priest Michael Azkoul with
the pretentious title The Teachings of the Holy Orthodox
Church.
This book was published in an
attractive format, with a quality binding, by the Dormition Skete in Colorado,
and with the blessing of the Rt. Rev. Alypy, Bishop of Cleveland. There can be
no doubt that a book not only holding such a title, but also having contents
corresponding to it, would be a great boon to Americans who do not know Russian
or Greek. And, in fact, the book does contain many valuable quotations from
Patristic literature. This is especially true in chapters 3, 4, and 5, where the
author speaks concerning the Creation of the world, the Economy of Old Israel,
and of the Lord Jesus Christ. The quotations from the Fathers are very
lengthy—the author's explanations of them are not always too good, but all this
is quite acceptable. The situation, however, is quite different in the first two
chapters, as well as in the special Appendix devoted to the Blessed
Augustine.
In the first chapter, entitled
Introduction, the subheadings themselves cause some amazement: (1)
The Apostolic Tradition, (2) Dogma, (3) The Western Heterodox, (4) Scriptures,
(5) Kerygma, (6) Episcopacy, (7) The Vincentian Canon, (8) The Fathers, (9)
Gnosis, (10) Modern Reason, (11) The Return to Tradition.
One is at a loss to find any
logical sequence in these various sections, which are completely heterogeneous
in meaning and content, as can be seen from the headings alone—why should "The
Western Heterodox" appear between "Dogma" and ''Scriptures"? In these chapters
the non-specialist reader could be rather confused when, for example, the author
writes in a deriding, polemical tone that "The Church is also obliged to accept
Clement of Alexandria, Origen's teacher, as Her spokesman, although She has
never accepted his authority" (p. 22). It is also very strange to read the words
of an educated clergyman who says that the Christian who "wishes to penetrate
'deeply' into the spiritual realm ... must ordinarily embrace the philosophy of
askesis—the monastic way" (p. 26). Is one to conclude from this that only
monks are saved? Note also that in his Glossary of Terms "askesis" is defined
first of all as "the life of the monk."
In his fondness for various
heretical teachings, which is evident throughout his book, the author could
easily have found a source for such a heresy also. One also meets up with
sentences that are quite absurd in their grammatical structure. For example,
"With the acceleration of secularism in the 20th century, so the acceleration of
rationalism in 'Greek theology'" (p. 28). It is unclear what the author wishes
to say. He often confuses the reader with inappropriate and premature haranguing
against heretics. Thus, for example, in the 5th chapter he opens the 3rd section
under the heading "The Second Adam" with the following phrases: "Christ is the
Saviour, but how does He save us? Nowhere in the Scriptures or the Fathers is
salvation accomplished, as some Protestant sects say, by 'faith alone,' without
any human effort." Here, as in many other places, he speaks of heretical
teachings before explaining the correct teaching of the Church. We cannot
approve of such a method.
Perhaps the weakest chapter in
all this work is the 2nd, in which he speaks of God, "First, because [God] has
revealed very little about His inner life." And "Second, because those Orthodox
raised in the heterodox West or in countries under its intellectual influence
have acquired ideas which are basically wrong and need to be unlearned." These
two aspects are what the author wishes to write this whole chapter about. Not
surprisingly, the result is nonsense when one tries to talk of two such
incompatible themes as the Holy Trinity and some puzzling Orthodox who grew up
in the West, and no one knows who needs it. Approaching this theme, the author
in his bizarre train of thought first tries to define who is a theologian.
Having first stated the scarcely-novel idea that "St. Gregory the Theologian
tells us that the study of theology is a privilege and a (sic) awful
responsibility," the author continues immediately with "It is not a subject for
academic debate, nor a sport, nor should it be part of a casual after-dinner
conversation" (p. 32). It is hardly likely that St. Gregory the Theologian spoke
thus of theology.
Further on in this chapter, the
author speaks much of various Roman Catholic and Protestant "theologians,"
mentioning also Judaism, Islam, and paganism. He denounces them all, but says
nothing positive of his own.
The author sometimes seems to
experience great difficulties with language: e.g., the word "oikonomia"
can indeed be translated by the word "dispensation," but in speaking of the
activity of God, as on page 35 for example, such a translation is absolutely
absurd.
Many correctly-expressed
thoughts lose their strength by being left without substantiation. That God
speaks in the plural, without indicating Himself plus the angels, is perfectly
right. But that Moses could never have entertained such a thought (p. 41) is
something that would have to be proven.
On page 88 the author discusses
the relationship of the individual's body and soul and shows that the Church
rejects such ideas as reincarnation. Here he certainly treats of important
matters, but if one is to touch upon them, they should be spoken of in detail,
not, as it were, in passing.
As we have already said, the
author refers too often and indiscriminately to all manner of heretics, actually
giving more attention to them than to Orthodox teaching. Unfortunately one gets
the idea from his statements that he does not have too clear a picture even of
historical heresies, or else deliberately mixes them up. For example, he says of
the Monophysites: "The Lord, said the heresiarch Eutyches the priest of
Constantinople (5th c.), has one (monos) nature (physis) and, as
some of his supporters will say, one will (mono-thelesis). He has only a
divine Nature (and Will)" (p. 179). And in the glossary of difficult terms he
defines Monophysitism: "The christological heresy that in Christ there is only
one nature (physis) and one will or energy (Monotheletism)." One ought
not to confuse two completely different heresies, even if there are some points
of contact between them.
It is hard to put up with all these shortcomings. But to
them is added yet a further blemish—a perfectly rabid hatred of the blessed
Augustine. The blessed Augustine is mentioned not only in a special appendix
devoted entirely to him, but also several times in each chapter. Each time, he
is dubbed "the greatest heresiarch" (p. 54) or the like. Thus it would sometimes
seem the author really wanted to write a book on the blessed Augustine. To him
he ascribes all the ills and misfortunes that arose in the West, and, of course,
among Orthodox who were influenced by the West. Judging by this book, I am
afraid that poor Fr. Michael Azkoul is himself the first victim of such Western
influence! If he stood on purely Orthodox foundations, he would not express
himself with such hatred. On the last page (206), he blames the blessed
Augustine for Calvinism. This shows us the dishonesty of the author's approach.
We all know the weaknesses in the writings of the blessed Augustine. But the
Church never passed judgement on him for this, especially as he constantly
emphasized that he was expressing his personal opinion and did not wish to
impose it on others. Many of his writings he reworked and rewrote before the end
of his life.
We can find equally weak points
in the writings of almost all the Holy fathers, but we are not about to cross
out the name of St. Basil the Great from among the saints because he made—from
our point of view—incorrect expressions about the Holy Trinity, which are due
partly to his caution in polemic with heretics and schismatics and partly to the
imperfect theological thought of his time. If the author refers to the lack of a
service to St. Augustine, he should look further and seek the reasons in
something one might call Greek chauvinism. Must we really give up celebrating
the Presanctified Liturgy because the Greeks did not trouble to compose a
service in honor of St. Gregory the Dialogist?
In the Russian Church it is customary to call Augustine of
Hippo "the blessed." Concerning his significance and veneration, the late
priestmonk Seraphim (of Platina) wrote a splendid and truly Orthodox book. With
his book one can fully agree.
Translated from the Russian text as published in Church Life, No. 11 12,
November/December 1986, the official organ of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox
Church Outside Russia. Translated from the Russian by Archpriest John R. Shaw.
|