Orthodox Christianity and the Radical Rejection of Dialectics
Or Why Not All Monotheistic Religions Are the Same (Part V)
To Die in Order to Live. The bottom crossbeam in the Orthodox Cross represents the footrest of the historical cross, but also the two thieves cruficied along Jesus Christ, showing the two paths that each person can follow by deciding whether or not to follow God, with the Cross being the instrument that made our deification possible. At the bottom, Adam's skull symbolizes Jesus as the Second Adam, emphasizing the Recapitulation doctrine of the atonement, with Jesus fulfilling what Adam could not.
In the last sections we have followed the development of dialectical thought in the history of Christianity.
Beginning with its total absence in early apostolic Christianity, we have seen how it was introduced through the Latin church of the West through the doctrine of the Filioque, which changed the character of the Christian God.
The Protestant Reformation, probably due to their lack of in-depth knowledge of the conflict between the Eastern and Western churches, accepted this novel doctrine.
In many respects, they defined themselves by adopting a position contrary to Catholic views, instead of looking back to patristic theology, which could have led to starting a dialogue with the Orthodox Church in views of a possible re-unification.
In the previous sections we have compared the main doctrines of Catholicism and Protestantism with those of the Orthodox Church. In this final section we intend to give a concise exposition of the aspects of Orthodoxy that have not been dealt with so far. We will emphasise how it avoids falling into dialectical thinking and thereby provides a valid solution to the dilemma between the One and the Many.
Early Deviations from Orthodox Christology and their Dialectical Presuppositions
Today’s Orthodox teachings are believed to be the same as those of the early Apostles, although their mode of expression has been adapted over the centuries to deal with doctrinal deviations and cultural changes. This stability, in turn, was achieved through apostolic succession, an unbroken line of Orthodox bishops ordained since the time of the Apostles, charged with protecting the teachings received. Thanks to this, the Orthodox Christian Church sees itself as the direct spiritual successor of the early Christians.
This unbroken succession line is significant because of the direct promise of Jesus Christ that the “gates of hell” (Matthew 16:18) would not prevail against the Church, and His promise that He Himself will be with the Apostles until “the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20).1Therefore, if we believe that the Christian Church became completely corrupt and had to be later re-founded, as the Protestant Reformation did, that would imply that these promises did not materialise.
By analizing early Christian history, we find that dialectical thought is not only found to be the main underlying problem of the Great Schism that created and separated Roman Catholicism from the Orthodox Church, as we previously saw, but it was also the paradigm behind all the previous unorthodox innovations, too.
Figure 1. Timeline of Major Christian Denominations.
[a.] Monophysitism or the Primacy of Absolute Unity
Monophysites (meaning “one nature”) challenged the patristic Orthodox doctrine of the two natures of Christ (human and divine) unified in His Person (Hypostatic Union). Instead, they held that Christ had only one nature, both human and divine, a third entity created from the addition of human nature to his divine one.
This motif of human nature fusing or merging with God´s one, as we have repeatedly seen by now, is the common solution of panentheistic doctrines to the problem of the One and the Many, were absolute oneness is unilaterally favored and plurality is viewed as an imperfection.
This view, therefore, is un-Christian in that it does not go beyond the problem of Unity and Multiplicity but instead choses a side in this dialectical battle. It also diminishes the concept of personhood, common in doctrines that conceptualize the Godhead as an impersonal entity but totally opposed to the Christian revelation and its focus on the co-primacy of Essence, Personhood and Energies (or operations).
Figure 2. Two Natures in One Person. Christ Pantocrator, from Saint Catherine's Monastery (Sinai), is one of the oldest Byzantine icons. The mirrored composites of the left and right sides of image show different depictions of the same Jesus, emphasizing the theme of the two Natures (human and divine) being interpenetrated in the Person of Jesus Christ.
This de-personalization of the deity, in turn, was received with suspicion as a first step towards notions of personal self-deification through fusion with God´s Essence, diminishing the role of Christ to that of a teacher instead of a savior.
Because of this, the early Fathers of the Church put especial emphasis in the correct understanding of the notion of union in and with God and what it entailed. As St. Gregory the Theologian summarily and succinctly stated:
“[…] For that which He has not assumed He has not healed.”
― St. Gregory of Nazianzus. To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius. Ep. CI
Therefore, if human nature was merged with God’s nature in His Incarnation, it was this third combined entity which resurrected and ascended with Him, not the common human nature of which we all partake and which we are so concerned to save.
In Orthodox Christian thought, instead, man is elevated (Theosis) to the same degree to which God voluntarily lowered Himself (Kenosis), each nature interpenetrating each other, while a doctrine of fusion implies that both should stop being themselves, diminishing both God and man.
Figure 3. The Virgin of Vladimir, the most famous icon depicting the Mother of the Incarnate God (Theotokos). This apellative should not be understood, however, as signifying that she is the mother of the divine nature of Jesus, which existed from all eternity, but the one from wich the Logos assumed our human nature from.
Catholicism was accused by Protestantism of idolatry for its sometimes excessive focus on the worship of Mary, the latter in turn diminishing her figure to an extent that the Orthodox consider excessive, given her crucial role in our salvation.
Orthodox Christianity, as in many other things, considers itself to be following the middle path between the two extremes of this dialectic. Mary is venerated, but not worshipped, the latter being reserved for God alone.
Catholicism was accused by Protestantism of idolatry for its sometimes excessive focus on the worship of Mary, the latter in turn diminishing her figure to an extent that the Orthodox consider excessive, given her crucial role in our salvation.
Orthodox Christianity, as in many other things, considers itself to be following the middle path between the two extremes of this dialectic. Mary is venerated, but not worshipped, the latter being reserved for God alone.
[b.] Nestorianism or the Primacy of Plurality
In the opposite extreme of Christological deviations from patristic theology we have Nestorianism (named after Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople), the doctrine that Christ existed as two different persons in one body rather than as a unified Person: the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, or Logos.
This doctrine, as did Monophysitism, also invalidates the concept of Hypostatic Union, the key doctrine that allows for Unity in Plurality. In this case, instead of favouring absolute unity, this Christological position sides with plurality through defending the notion that a “two-natured” Christ (Dyophysitism) had to be incarnated in distinct human and divine persons.
This implies the categorical confusion between nature and person, as well as the fracture of Christ´s personhood in two complementary parts, abandoning the key “two natures in one Person” doctrine of traditional theology.
Therefore, even though this Dyophysitism (two natures) seems superficially opposed to Monophysitism (one nature), it is just the opposite horn of the same One / Many dialectic, instantiated for the first time in Christian history.
Nestorius was especially criticized by St. Cyril (Patriarch of Alexandria) who argued that his doctrines undermined the unity of Christ’s divine and human natures at the Incarnation.
This type of “union”, St. Cyril stated, would also be incapable of saving us, since it would imply that God was united with only a specific person, Jesus, instead of assuming in His personhood general human nature. Only the third term present in the Hypostatic Union (two natures under the personhood of Christ) can save us. In the process, or more precisely because of it, it also solves the problem of the One and the Many, affirming the co-primacy of both Unity and Plurality by rejecting any trace of dialectical thought in regards to God.
“Only if it is one and the same Christ who is consubstantial with the Father and with men can He save us, for the meeting ground between God and man is Flesh and Christ.” 2See McGuckin, John Anthony (2015). On the Unity of Christ. St Vladimirs Seminary Press.
— St. Cyril of Alexandria
Orthodox Christology and the Co-Primacy of Unity and Plurality
Orthodox Christology, then, is characterized by its affirmation of both the Unity and Plurality of Christ through the Hypostatic Union, the union of both human and divine natures not between them but through the third term of the person of Jesus Christ, the Incarnation of the Son of God. Just as Jesus is the mediator between creation and God, He is also the mediator between His nature and ours.
As we have seen throughout this website, this type of union through interpenetration (Perichoresis) is unique to Christianity, being the reflection of the Unity in Plurality found in the Tri-Une God. This correspondence between all levels of reality in transcending dialectics, including the doctrine of mankind being created in the image of God, would be the real meaning of the esoteric dictum “as above, so below” in Christian understanding.
Figure 4. Summary of Orthodox Christology.
Orthodox Trinitarian Theology and the Transcendence of the Problem of the One and the Many
This rejection to fall into a dialectical mode of thinking, in turn, is only possible because the revealed structure of the original Trinity that Orthodox Christianity defended against the innovation of the Filioque is in itself non-dialectical.
By affirming the uniqueness of each Person of the Trinity (the Father as Arché or source, the Son as the Only Begotten and the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father) instead of by rationalizing the Holy Spirit as the common middle ground between Father and Son (a mediator resolving the tension between an underlying duality through a synthesis), the uniqueness of each particular human person is also preserved against absorption into the One of pure monistic Panentheism.
By conceiving God as above any dialectical tension, including the one between pure Actuality and Potentiality, Orthodox theology rejects the metaphysical dogmas that God is:
• Pure Actuality, an absolutely simple Essence devoid of any Potentiality or free will.
• The Absolute, the All, a totality achievable through the Unity of Opposites, including the recontextualization of evil.
Therefore, the Trinitarian Godhead affirms the irreducibility of God to an absolutely simple Essence, embracing instead a triple definition of God composed of Essence, Personhood and Uncreated Energies (attributes, used to define the Divine Names [e.g., God is Love, God is Good, God is One]).
These Uncreated Energies of God, a doctrine only found in Orthodox Christianity, are the inheritance promised to mankind. They are that which enables us to become god by bridging the gulf between man and God, while also avoiding the fusion with Him into an undifferentiated Essence where particularity has no place.
Figure 5. Summary of the Orthodox Doctrine on the Holy Trinity.
Orthodox Eschatology and the Eternal Existence of Unity in Difference
Because a non-dialectical answer to the problem of the One and the Many is found in every ontological level of revealed doctrine (e.g., the Trinitarian Godhead, God´s Incarnation, the eschatological world to come), we have classified mankind´s state of deification or divinization (Theosis) as its own category in our typology of the Mysticism of Union (as we saw HERE).
Orthodox eschatology is not a representative of External Union, such as the concepts of a heavenly realm found in theistic Monotheism (e.g., Judaism, Islam) or even in Trinitarian Protestantism. It is also not a representative of the Internal Union / Fusion found in panentheistic Theism (e.g., Kabbalah, Sufism, Vishishtadvaita Vedanta) or even in the Catholic Beatific Vision of God.
Equally valuing both unity and uniqueness, the divinization of man promises to make him a god through God becoming “All in all”, while retaining the subject / object differentiation between God and saved beings, able to eternally love each other in their uniqueness while being One through communion of will and through the God that is in them all.
Instead of the fusion between knower and known into knowledge, remaining only the latter, the eternal presence of lover, loved and the love between them. Myself, the “Other” and God, a tri-une reality where love is possible through the Trinitarian God.
Practical Life in Orthodox Christianity: The Middle Way Between Extreme Asceticism and Slavery to the Passions
Orthopraxis, or the practical way of life of an Orthodox Christian, also shows Unity in Plurality in that it provides different possible ways leading to the same destination.
Instead of the monastic disciplines of the One, where only expert meditators can achieve liberation and lay persons have to acquire merit to be later reborn in more favourable conditions, the monastic path is not the exclusive way of salvation in Orthodox Christianity.
Both monastic vocations (also non-monastic celibacy) and marriage are seen as equally honourable in the eyes of God, both representing marriage or union: the former with God through exclusive dedication, the latter as an image of the union of Christ (bridegroom) with His Church (the bride).
Since there is no underlying hatred of matter in the Orthodox worldview, a more mundane life such as that of married people, if lived in a spirit of holiness, is not considered as necessarily inferior.
[a.] Prayer and Hesychasm: The Non-Dialectical Nature of the Orthodox Spiritual Life
Even in prayer can we speak of both a focus on a unified mind through stillness (Hesychasm), attention and vigilance (Nepsis) while retaining “otherness” by praying to God instead of concentrating on emptiness and eliminating any thought that is conceived as tainting it.
Therefore, we can say that even in Orthodox spiritual practices (“Christian meditation”), plurality in the form of appropriate thoughts (usually the name of God) is present (e.g., the Jesus Prayer in one of its many forms).
Among Christian denominations, Orthodox practical life also typically represents a middle way between the usually reduced presence of spiritual and ascetical practices of Protestantism (e.g., light fasting, prayer rules found in other denominations) and the severity of the ones found in Catholicism (e.g., prohibition of the clergy to marry, mortification of the flesh in extreme cases).
Figure 6. Summary of Orthodox Practical Life, which is the primary focus of monastics but, to a variable degree, also a part of the life of each willing believer.
[b.] St. Symeon the New Theologian and the Uncreated Light
To finish our overview through Orthodoxy’s non-dialectical Both / And way of thinking we will briefly mention the experiences of one of its most popular and descriptive mystics: St. Symeon the New Theologian.
In his Hymns of Divine Love3Turner, H. J. M. (1990). St. Symeon the New Theologian and Spiritual Fatherhood. Vol.11 of Byzantina Neerlandica. Brill, p. 35., St. Symeon describes his vision of God as uncreated Divine Light4Alfeyev, Hilarion (2000). Saint Symeon, the New Theologian, and Orthodox Tradition. Oxford University Press, p. 51., speaking of it as both an inward and outward mystical experience. This direct experience (Theoria), he taught, was the same as that experienced by the early Church Fathers and, although rare, could in principle be attained by every believer.
These experiences, which came to him after inward prayer and contemplation, were also associated with a feeling of both indescribable joy and intellectual understanding.5Krivocheine, Basil; Gythiel, Anthony P. (1986). In the Light of Christ: Saint Symeon, the New Theologian (949–1022). St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, pp. 215–229.A
A.“[…] Those who have received grace have received the light of God and have received God, even as Christ Himself, who is the Light, has said, “I will live in them and move among them.” [2 Cor. 6:16] 6de Catanzaro, C. J.; Maloney S. J., George (1980). Symeon the New Theologian: The Discourses. Paulist Press, pp. 27–28.
― St. Symeon, New Theologian.
Discourse XXVIII
Recommended Reading
- The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy. R.J. Rushdoony.
- The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Vladimir Lossky.
- God, History, and Dialectic (Vol I-II). Joseph P. Farrell.
- Dogmatic Theology: Creation, God’s Image in Man, and the Redeeming Work of the Trinity. Vladimir Lossky.
- In the Image and Likeness of God. Vladimir Lossky.
Notes
- Therefore, if we believe that the Christian Church became completely corrupt and had to be later re-founded, as the Protestant Reformation did, that would imply that these promises did not materialise.
- McGuckin, John Anthony (2015). On the Unity of Christ. St Vladimirs Seminary Press.
- Turner, H. J. M. (1990). St. Symeon the New Theologian and Spiritual Fatherhood. Vol.11 of Byzantina Neerlandica. Brill, p. 35.
- Alfeyev, Hilarion (2000). Saint Symeon, the New Theologian, and Orthodox Tradition. Oxford University Press, p. 51.
- Krivocheine, Basil; Gythiel, Anthony P. (1986). In the Light of Christ: Saint Symeon, the New Theologian (949–1022). St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, pp. 215–229.
- de Catanzaro, C. J.; Maloney S. J., George (1980). Symeon the New Theologian: The Discourses. Paulist Press, pp. 27–28.
NEXT
You can sequentially read the whole foundational and key articles on this website by just following the path below.
The First Great Practical
Danger of Dialectics:
A Perennialist form of Ecumenism
This section concludes our journey through the major spiritual worldviews of past and present, as well as our metaphysical analysis of how they deal with the problem of the One and the Many and whether or not they do so in a dialectical way.
As we have seen, for Orthodox Christianity, the innate tendency to such dialectical thinking is the very origin of the present fallen state of our nature.
In the next section, we will analyze how dialectics can be artificially used to elevate some beliefs over others, and the dangers this poses to us. Does Unity mean Truth? If not, which one should prevail? Is a forced Unity among religions a good solution?
- 1Therefore, if we believe that the Christian Church became completely corrupt and had to be later re-founded, as the Protestant Reformation did, that would imply that these promises did not materialise.
- 2See McGuckin, John Anthony (2015). On the Unity of Christ. St Vladimirs Seminary Press.
- 3Turner, H. J. M. (1990). St. Symeon the New Theologian and Spiritual Fatherhood. Vol.11 of Byzantina Neerlandica. Brill, p. 35.
- 4Alfeyev, Hilarion (2000). Saint Symeon, the New Theologian, and Orthodox Tradition. Oxford University Press, p. 51.
- 5Krivocheine, Basil; Gythiel, Anthony P. (1986). In the Light of Christ: Saint Symeon, the New Theologian (949–1022). St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, pp. 215–229.
- 6de Catanzaro, C. J.; Maloney S. J., George (1980). Symeon the New Theologian: The Discourses. Paulist Press, pp. 27–28.
