Theology as a Science

The lecture, prepared (in the evening) on the eve of the Exaltation - on Thursday 1907, IX, 13, was delivered on Monday, September 17, 1907 to students of the first (LXVIII) and II (LXVII) courses In Your light [Lord] we will see light. Our educational and pedagogical cycle begins again. The young forces that had flown away were replenished with fresh replacements - and the tide of theological and scientific inquisitiveness opened again. And whoever has to stand motionless among these walls sees before him, as it were, the ebb and flow of living waves. And this analogy provokes serious thought. First of all, it speaks of harmonious correspondence in different parts of nature, but, without turning into identity, it also indicates significant differences. And the latter are such that the mechanical is not equal to the organic, and the living should not be simply a copy of the dead processes of lifeless repetition. This means that in our case, the tide cannot only be a replenishment of the loss that has occurred, when it would condemn itself in advance, dooming itself to the pitiful role of a passive figure for the remaining empty space. Obviously, something new is required compared to its predecessors in order to make them bigger and better and move the overall work forward. This outlines an indispensable task for our new members, who without such resources and goals have no right to their very existence among us. True, without them we ourselves would soon cease to exist, but it is always more worthy to die as an ideological force than to remain as a dead fossil, inhibiting the organic growth of life. And, fortunately, we immediately find something truly new, hitherto unseen in such a significant quantity. It will be given to us by the arrival of a numerous element of representatives of creative pastoral work with the experience of their years (sometimes quite respectable) and with lessons in practical ministry [Of course, the fact that in this academic year many priests entered the 1st (LXVIII) year as students - approx. author]. With these reserves, they must bring sobriety of view, balance of mood, methodical tension - and for now this alone will be a highly useful contribution to our scientific and pedagogical work. We all need exactly these factors. I will not particularly remind you what disastrous results were accompanied by their absence in the process of pedagogical life itself, where the loss of balance caused complete confusion. It became unknown who teaches whom and what people learn, since the sciences were not mastered for the sake of their inherent truth, but the latter began to be fundamentally “married” in the interests of goals, either subjectively partisan or downright malicious. In our special field, confusion sometimes reached almost its climax. It is enough to note that sometimes they tried to overturn the entire edifice of theological science and sweep away the very academic foundation. Some insisted that Christian theology, naturally, is subject to the knowledge and competence of every reasonable Christian, as such, and therefore cannot be the “property of specialists” who cultivate this discipline as a special branch of knowledge. And our newest church-political movements testify that non-theological voices tried to give the tone and gain the upper hand in the discussion of theological topics. The slogan sounded firmly and proudly that the members of the body of Christ all and equally “have all kinds of competition” (1 Cor. 2:15) [This refers to the words of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians: “he who is spiritual judges all things, but no one can judge him” - approx. ed. BV]. If so, then specialization inevitably narrows and belittles the object of “common use,” turning it into an object of limited horizons of intellectual inquisitiveness. And so theological science, which seems unnecessary to the vast majority of our Orthodox society of all gradations, is now already orthodoxly suspicious and rationalistically dangerous, or directly harmful both for the highest hierarchical circles and for the accelerated newspaper feuilletons [As far as I remember, in the latter case, of course, the newspaper antics of the famous employee of “New Time” Mikhail Osipovich (who was killed in 1918) Menshikov, who slandered a lot about Russian spirits (mischief) and theology and on the occasion of the centenary anniversary of the Petrograd Academy (in December 1910) published the shameful feuilleton “A Feast in the Time of Plague” - approx. author]. In all this there is not so much scientific conviction as undisciplined sentiment, which by its very predominance irresistibly confirms the legitimacy, necessity and importance of strict theological science. It would be easy to do away with them, but now sworn theologians are turning against themselves. They categorically express that theological science as equal to other scientific disciplines, in fact, does not exist at all. It is possible only in the future, when it will be entirely built on revolutionary principles, and Christianity will be a process of gradual development in indefinitum from some primary embryological embryos! Here, generally accepted scientific character will be acquired precisely because theology will replace its former absolute authorities with relative evolutionary factors [see: Prof. Otto Pfleiderer. Die Entwicklung des Christentums. Munchen, 1907. S. VII - approx. author]. It is, of course, easier for a person to deal with the relative and subordinate than with the absolute and imperative; he gravitates more towards the voluntary than towards the obligatory... This means that it would not be difficult to rebuild theology according to the indicated method - with the hope of universal success. The trouble is that this will lead to a distortion of the very object of study. What evolutionists don’t like about it is its absoluteness, but what can one do if this is the nature of the subject itself? It is at least certain that he is depicted in the New Testament writings with strictly divine dignity and, above all, must be accepted in this absolute quality. They object to us that with such properties he does not find a legitimate place for himself in the purpose of the world and turns into a myth, and therefore, for his own self-preservation, he must descend to the level of a relative historical magnitude. But it is not at all true that there is no historical basis for Christian divinity. On the contrary, it exists and, affirming the fact itself, reveals its historical necessity. And the latter is rooted in the fact that for this purpose all historical resources turned out to be insufficient and unsuitable to such an extent that systematic use only led to complete exhaustion. The moment had come when everything would have to perish with the same means, and salvation could only come from new factors, that is, transcendental ones. This naturally created the need for higher or divine intervention, which turns out to be natural in the course of the historical process. And the Apostle Paul testifies (Gal. 4:4) that God sent His divine Son when “the fulness of the times has come,” or after all the usual means available to humanity had been exhausted. As a result, it turns out that the relative itself acquires the basis of its existence in the absolute, and everyone can be convinced of this by personal experience and thoughtful observation. But they further emphasize that human knowledge itself is limited, and therefore claims to absoluteness expose their essential unscientificness. However, here theology as a science is in vain confused with faith professing absolute truth, for it does not at all claim absolute exclusivity among all other scientific disciplines. Theology only explores the absolute object in the historical conditions of its discovery and relative human forces. It is clear that success here can also be relative. With all this, it is extremely wrong to think that it is relativity that serves as a measure of scientificity. Quite the opposite! The first is inevitable for people, but is by no means the ultimate ideal. With essential relativity, our knowledge would lose its meaning and value, since it would then turn into a simple repetition of conventions that cannot give a final result. There will be only a fruitless cycle without a self-sufficient goal and a crowning result, and this is an undoubted and irremovable death for all human knowledge. The latter strives forward and makes all the sacrifices and efforts solely in order to master the truth, which is indisputable and binding for everyone or absolute in its finality, not allowing any perplexity or search. Of course, our means for this are insufficient, but humanities believe in the universal human reason of the entire world history, where countless partial acquisitions, supposedly, should form an unlimited sum in their totality, and in the Christian-theological field we expect a decisive crown not at all from human weakness. There we do not so much know God as we are known from Him (Gal. 4:9), for the subject of knowledge comes to us through the revelation of the Absolute in the Absolute or in an adequate form, and we prepare for its perception by divine rebirth, and from here an unshakable confidence is born and confirmed in us that one day we will see the Knowable face to face (1 Cor. 13:12) with all the immediacy of the most precise contemplation. Therefore, in Christian theology, absolute factors promise and provide absolute results. But in all other areas of knowledge, our inevitable relativity draws strength only from communication with the absolute, which inspires our tensions and illuminates all relative successes with the light of higher unity. From this point of view, theology, true to its ideal, will be the most perfect knowledge if it does not forget that - as a science - it must, through the means of human reason, strive to comprehend the object of its faith. This is how Christ the Redeemer, about whom the writings of the New Testament speak, serves for us. We need to achieve an accurate knowledge of the person and work of the Lord the Savior, and for this the epistles of St. Apostle Paul. With his whole being, he clearly illustrates the necessity of absolute knowledge for the fruitfulness of human knowledge, for he acquired holistic Christian knowledge only through the confession of the divinity of Christ. In this regard, the Hellenic evangelist is a scientific theologian kat v evxoch,n and can serve as an unconditionally suitable authority for us. Along with this, the historical merit of his messages for a clear and objective awareness of the life of our Lord Jesus Christ is no less indisputable.