Sed nobis in ecclesia non tantum voluptatis causa vetustas cognoscenda est: sed iudicia et testimonia omnium temporum inquirenda sunt, ut una consentiens doctrina retineatur.
Philipp Melanchthon, âOratio de Basilio Episcopo Caesariensiâ (1545)1
â¦
[â¦] breaking away from the West does not as such guarantee a true and authentic liberation.2
âµ
The present volume owes its existence to His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who wished to see the Centre Orthodoxe du Patriarcat Åcuménique in Chambésy, near Geneva, plan an event commemorating the 500th anniversary of Lutherâs reformation. On December 7th and 8th, 2017, sixteen scholars met in Chambésyâs Orthodox Center and at the University of Geneva in order to discuss the topic of Lutherâs theological anthropology. This book gathers the texts which were presented during the conference.
The program and format of the conference were designed to stimulate a conversation between Protestant and Orthodox perspectives on Luther, but also on the key anthropological themes Luther himself addressed in his works. The papers included in the volumes come from eight Orthodox scholars who were paired with seven Protestant scholars.3
The relation between Luther and Orthodoxy is not a frequent topic of inquiry.4 Few Protestants have studied it â and even fewer Orthodox. In our ecumenical age, however, such inquiry and dialogue are not optional: the best way to move forward in our quest for unity of all Christians is to learn to know one another better, more accurately and deeply, not just by reading, but also by meeting one another. The present introduction is divided into two sections: first, we provide a brief survey of the history of Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue. Second, we turn to certain key issues which continue to emerge in the course of this dialogue when we address the topic of theological anthropology.
1 Lutheran-Orthodox Encounters: a Brief Historical Survey
Luther did not have any opportunity to actually meet any representative from Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. His knowledge of Orthodoxy was in fact limited to his readings of the Church Fathers and of more recent Orthodox theologians. The world of Greek Orthodoxy, at the time, was slowly recovering from the fall of Byzantium at the hands of the Ottomans in May 1453.
But Luther, in his struggle against the papacy, was keen to remind his opponents of the greatness of the Orthodox Church. In his July 1519 debate with Johann Eck, in response to the thesis that the Roman-Catholic Church has been granted absolute and divine authority, Luther replied:
I myself could not deny this, if the faithful from the entire world were unanimous in saying that the bishop of Rome, or Paris, or Magdeburg, or of any other place, is the primatial and supreme pontiff, the one who, as the supreme monarch, should be revered by the Church as a whole. But this has never been the case, it is not the case today, and it will never be the case, for the Greek Church, to this day, has not accepted it; and it has not been condemned as heretical because of it.5
The very reality of Orthodox Christianity, which no longer was in communion with Rome, which did not abide by the popeâs pronouncements, which did not need the popeâs approval when appointing its bishops,6 and which, all the while, had not been condemned as heretical, was already becoming important for Luther in the earliest stages of the Reformation for obvious apologetic purposes: it was the living proof that Christianity could not be reduced to Roman-Catholicism, that legitimate and indeed authentic forms of Christianity existed beyond the scope of papacy.
Direct contacts between Lutheran and Orthodox thinkers began not long before Lutherâs death on February 18, 1546. In 1543, Melanchthon (1497â1560) received a letter from Antonios Eparchos (â 1571), a Greek scholar and a manuscript dealer from Corfu, urging him to set aside theological disputes in order to unite all of Europe in the struggle against the Sultan. Unconvinced, Melanchthon let one of his collaborators, Joachim Camerarius, write a reply.7 But he became more aware of the plight of contemporary Greek Orthodoxy, as can be seen from a peroration (declamatio) he gave in Erfurt in 1545 about Basil the Great:
Now let us turn to the history. When I observe Basilsâ homeland and abode with my mindâs eyes, roaming as it were through these regions of Asia, the consideration of the devastation the Turks have wrought upon that most flourishing and beautiful region of the world causes me immense grief. [â¦] But who would not grieve, now, when we hear that those most flourishing Churches and towns have been turned into Turkish stables and huts abounding with impiety, filth, and cruelty; considering which, not only should we grieve Asiaâs calamity, but should also be perturbed by the peril looming over ourselves. If we wish to beat the Turks, and fear a disaster similar to the Asian one, the causes should be removed. Godâs wrath must be assuaged by means of true offices of piety, a matter we have often discussed.8
Melanchthon was certainly not ready to subordinate theological matters to political considerations, as Antonios Eparchos had urged him to do. But the urgency of the political situation did not escape him at all.
At the end of May 1559, Demetrios Myssos, a deacon who had been sent by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, arrived in Wittenberg. During the next four months, he resided in Melanchthonâs house, in order to garner firsthand knowledge concerning the Reformation, especially its doctrine and liturgy.9 Previously, a Greek adaptation (not a literal translation) of the Augsburg Confession, the so-called Confessio Augustana graeca, had been prepared by Paul Dolscius and published in Basel.10 Demetrios was supposed to bring a copy back to Constantinople, along with a letter, written in Greek, addressed by Melanchthon to Patriarch Ioasaph II (1555â1565). In it, Melanchthon assures the Patriarch that Protestants âretain with authentic piety the holy Scriptures, the Prophetic as well as the Apostolic ones,â they follow the first councils and the teachings of the Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, Epiphanius, Theodoretus âand others who are in agreement with them.â11 But Demetrios never returned to Constantinople, and Melanchthon died a few months later; the Patriarch does not appear to have replied to his letter, and it is unlikely that he ever received it.12
Starting in 1573, Patriarch Jeremias II (Tranos) (ca. 1530â1595), in office from 1572â1579, 1580â1584, 1587â1595, corresponded with Lutheran theologians from Tübingen until 1581. He responded to a first letter they had sent him, and later critically commented on the Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession which was presented to him, on May 24th, 1575, by Jakob Andreae (1528â1590) and Martin Crusius (1526â1607), a professor of Greek and Latin philology at the University of Tübingen and one of the few scholars fluent in contemporary Greek.13 By 1581, however, Jeremias II thought the letter exchange had run its course: the divergences were too profound. He wrote:
You can never be in agreement with us, or rather, with the truth, [â¦] and we beg you not to trouble us further, not to write us or appeal to us while you go on reinterpreting the guiding lights of the Church and its theologians in other ways, paying them respect in words but repudiating them in deeds [â¦]. Go your way and do not write us any more about dogmas; and if you do write, then write only for friendshipâs sake.14
The door, as the final sentence indicates, was not entirely shut. Some form of dialogue continued, in a more modest and discrete manner, as Martin Crusius continued to communicate with the patriarchal protonotary Theodosius Zygomalas (1544âca. 1614).15
In later decades, Cyril Loukaris (1572â1638), born in Crete, became Patriarch of Alexandria, in 1601 and twenty years later Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople. He appears to have called for a rapprochement with Rome, at the turn of the 17th century,16 but eventually he became known for his friendly attitude towards Protestants â mostly Reformed, but also Lutherans, such as King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, and Anglicans. This was already the case after his nomination as Patriarch of Alexandria, especially after 1608 â a striking fact which continues to be provoke debates among historians and theologians within Orthodoxy. Loukaris was convinced that an alliance with Protestantism would be beneficial to the Orthodox Church. His theological inclination towards Protestant and especially Calvinist theology (his March 1629 Confession de Foy admits of only two sacraments and betrays a strong doctrine of double predestination) had much to do with political decisions he felt compelled to make as Patriarch of Alexandria and of Constantinople.17 Loukaris was repeatedly condemned in the decades that followed his death. What Florovsky has called the âpseudomorphosisâ of Orthodoxy, that is, its transformation due to the influence of external factors (in Loukarisâ case: Reformed theology) continued, this time with Roman leanings which came to be forcefully and successfully promoted by Peter Mogila (1596â1647), Metropolitan of Kiev.18
But the influence of Protestantism was far from over. As Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) (1782â1867) of Moscow stated, many Orthodox seminaries and academies, in the second half of the 18th century, followed the manuals of Protestant theologians such as David Hollaz (1648â1713), Johannes Andreas Quenstedt (1617â1688), and Jean-Alphonse Turretini (1671â1737): he himself was trained by professors who dictated excerpts from Hollaz.19
Later, with the earliest emergence of what would eventually be known as âPietism,â Lutheran books made their way into Orthodox regions. Johann Arndtâs hugely successful book, Vom wahren Christenthum (first published in Francfort in 1605, rev. ed. 1610; 123 editions by 1740), was published in Russian in 1735.20 The translator, Simeon Todorskij (1701â1754), had taught in Halle and subsequently became bishop of Pskov. Contacts between Halle, the city which became the center of German Pietism, and Russia intensified in the 18th century, under the reign of Peter the Great (1682â1725), who stood in close relation with Germany and German Lutherans. In Russia, until at least the first half of the 19th century, Orthodox priests were often trained by being taught a combination of Pietist and (Lutheran) scholastic ideas; the notion and reality of âtraditionâ was absent from some of the most important dogmatic books published in those years.21
We cannot retrace here the history of the encounters between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy in later decades and centuries. Estrangement came to dominate, in the 19th century and early 20th century, as Lutherans embarked on missions in Orthodox countries.22 Luther came to be denounced as a âheresiarch,â that is, as a âleader of heresy,â in an encyclical promulgated by the Synod of Constantinople in 1836.23 At a time when young Orthodox were flocking to English-speaking schools run by Protestants, Gregory VI, the Patriarch of Constantinople from 1835 to 1840 and from 1867 to 1871, unambiguously condemned Protestants as âthe enemies of our faith.â24 These tensions help explain the need and success of the 1910 Edinburgh Missionary Conference, which many now consider to be the birthdate of the contemporary ecumenical movement.
In recent decades, dialogue has been revived, as could be expected in our âecumenical era,â despite some Orthodox voices, often fundamentalist ones, which object to this kind of dialogue.25 In 1936, at the First Congress of Orthodox Theology held in Athens, and in the presence of several Protestant observers, Georges Florovsky, alongside two other keynote speakers (Chrysostomos [Papadopoulos], archbishop of Athens, and Konstantinos Dyovouniotis), spoke on the influence of Protestantism on Orthodoxy after the fall of Constantinople.26 The president of the Congress, Hamilcar Alivisatos, said this in his opening speech:
The era which precedes our century can be called the era of division, because of the narrowness and obstinacy which, in various contexts, especially in theological contexts, and in the theological debates over formulae and about unilateral standpoints, often completely forgot the main substance of the Christian religion itself. The epoch which follows the war, independently of the fruits â which might seem dubious at times â of the unifying effort which is at hand, can be called, precisely because of that effort, its nature and character, the era of union, renewal, and gradual revival of a specifically Christian conscience.27
Hamilcar Alivisatosâ speech of 1936 is a clear sign of the deep interest with which various Greek Orthodox were following the burgeoning ecumenical movement. A decade later, Georges Florovsky, representing the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople, significantly contributed to the constitution of the World Council of Churches and to its First Assembly, in Amsterdam (1948).28
In 1959, the Protestant Church in Germany (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, or EKD) started official bilateral discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate, and a decade later with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In 1968, the fourth Pan-Orthodox Conference decided to engage in an official bilateral dialogue with the Lutheran World Federation. Starting in 1981, the Lutheran World Federation conducted a global bilateral theological dialogue with Eastern Orthodoxy. From that year until 2015, a series of sixteen meetings of the Lutheran-Orthodox Join Commission took place. Topics related to the traditional theological prolegomena, such revelation, Scripture and tradition, were first addressed, between 1981 and 1993. Since 1994 the discussions moved to the theme of soteriology as well as to sacramental and ecclesiological matters.29 Among the topics which touch upon the theme of the present volume, i.e. theological anthropology, we may point out the 1998 discussions on âsalvation,â a highlight of the several decades of official international dialogue according to Risto Saarinen.30
An important actor of ecumenism for the Orthodox Churches in the 20th century, namely Metropolitan Emilianos (Timiadis) (1916â2008), who was the second permanent representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the World Council of Churches (with a tenure of 26 years: 1959â1985), served as co-chairman of this Joint Commission since 1981, alongside the Lutheran theologian Georg Kretschmar.
In the 1990s, various Orthodox Churches expressed a deep unease with the World Council of Churches, which they viewed as too closely adjusted to Western values.31 These criticisms have been (and continue to be) expressed mostly, but not exclusively, by the Moscow Patriarchate; the Churches of Georgia and Bulgaria have left the World Council of Churches, in 1997 and 1998 respectively. The relations between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the World Council of Churches, on the other hand, remain very sound and productive.
On May 31, 2017, in honor of his contribution to Protestant-Orthodox dialogue as well as ecology, Patriarch Bartholomew was conferred an honorary doctorate by the Protestant Faculty of Theology of the University of Tübingen â the very University from which a delegation was sent to Constantinople in the 16th century and with which Patriarch Jeremias II was in relation, from 1573 until 1581.
Certainly, there is still a long way until a broad and in-depth engagement of Lutherâs and Lutheran theology is achieved by Orthodox scholars, just as the Lutheran and Protestant scholars who have a broad knowledge of Orthodoxy are not many.32 As Nikos Nissiotis put it, when discussing Lutherâs ecclesiology:
Not only Roman Catholics and Protestants in the West but also we Orthodox have to read, listen and be corrected in our self-sufficiency and in our passive confidence in the human structures of the Church. Luther, in the end, is not against them as such, but against their abuses of authority and against a false man-centered glory and an exaggerated ceremonialism. He fights to keep the Unity of the Church. [â¦] Lutherans should not have allowed us Orthodox to monopolize pneumatology in connection with ecclesiology. Luther offers an equally important theology of the Spirit from the West to the whole Church [â¦].33
Such positive statements â which go against the grain of the tired refrain concerning the supposed pneumatological deficit in the West â are not incompatible with a lucid, critical appraisal of Lutherâs thought.
So far, our introduction to the contributions which are gathered in the present book has been mostly historical in nature. We now turn to some of the theological themes which come up in the book.
2 Key Issues in Relation to Theological Anthropology
Among the topics which are mentioned in the present volumes, and which certainly deserve a fuller examination, are the following:
2.1 The Question of âIndividualistâ Leanings in Lutherâs Theology
This is a recurring criticism of Luther and Lutheranism among Orthodox scholars. Alexis S. Khomiakov (1804â1860) viewed this as a problem Protestants and Roman-Catholics have in common, albeit in different ways, since the first tend to locate ultimate authority in Scripture, whereas the second take authority to be embodied in the figure of the pope. But is it so sure that Lutherâs theological anthropology inevitably leads to the various forms of âindividualismâ we surely witness in Western countries, and perhaps even more clearly in countries influenced by Lutheranism? Doesnât Luther differentiate, in his own way, between the âindividual,â as a separate entity, and the human âpersonâ as it stands before God and before (cf. the well-known Lutheran coram: coram Deo, coram hominibus) his neighbor, in the world? The debate on this particular point is all but over. It will be fruitful only if it is pursued without caricaturing Lutherâs thought, and also without any underlying apologetic intentions on the part of Lutheran scholars. It will also need not to confuse Luther, on the one hand, and Lutheranism on the other, i.e. Lutherâs own complex, un-systematized thought, and the tradition to which he gave rise without determining every twist and turn in its five-hundred-year history. Modern and contemporary interpretations cannot and should not simply be traced all too directly and monocausally to Luther. Factors that have intervened in our history since the 16th century, and that can be said to have themselves been directly caused by the Protestant Reformation only to a point, have greatly contributed to what we call âindividualismâ today.
2.2 Human Freedom and the Question of âSynergyâ in Soteriological Discourse
The notion of âfreedomâ is central in Lutherâs theology; the title of one of his most celebrated treatises, De libertate christiana (1520), as well as Lutherâs way, mostly in the years 1517â1518 and only in his letters to a circle of five friends, of signing his last name (âEleutheriusâ), confirm this. But Luther articulated this notion in close connection with its opposite, i.e. âservitudeâ or âbondage.â Human beings, as sinners, are not âfreeâ to open themselves up to God and to a just relation with God. Godâs action toward them is necessary for them to become free. Freedom, therefore, is not a âqualityâ which human beings naturally enjoy. Rather, human beings become free when they are led to trust Godâs promises and when they welcome Godâs gift into their heart, i.e. into their life.
Orthodoxy, no less than Lutherâs theology, also centers on freedom. When commenting on Lutherâs theology of freedom, Orthodox scholars often see a direct link between Lutherâs views and modernityâs emphatic embrace of the concept of âfreedom.â More work needs to be done in order to analyze the points of contact, as well as the divergences, between Lutheran and Orthodox perspectives on freedom.34 It appears that the concept of freedom is much more explicitly and intimately connected with ecclesiology, in the Orthodox tradition. Not that this link is absent in Luther and the Lutheran tradition. But many Orthodox scholars consider that Luther tends to focus on Godâs act toward the human person as an âIâ in relation to you âyou,â rather than as an âIâ towards a âwe,â i.e. toward the Church. In addition, the Orthodox tradition places a significantly greater emphasis on the necessity of the âfreeâ human response of human beings who have received Godâs transforming grace. Salvation is a free gift, to be sure, but this gift calls for a free decision to cooperate, i.e. to work together with God, in a âsynergyâ between God and the human will: good works are not mere expressions of salvation freely received as Godâs exclusive gift, as Protestants often emphasize. They are, rather, a necessary component of the ongoing growth of the human towards deification.35 Such claims often worry Protestant theologians, who emphasize Godâs exclusive action and gift with regard to salvation (sola gratia!), and who consequently are often quite reluctant to speak of âsynergy.â36 Still, there must be room for the theme of âsynergyâ in any Christian theology, at least on a different level than in connection with salvation, namely with regard to the witnessing that Christians are called to enact in and for the world, both communally and individually (see 1 Cor 3:9 and 2 Cor 6:1). When it comes to soteriology, Lutheran theology centers on justification, a term that barely appears as Orthodox Christians consider the matter: the terms they use have to do, instead, with purification, illumination, and divinization.37 Semantics here reveal profound theological differences, even as, concerning other aspects related to salvation, convergences are no less real, for instance on the decisive view that salvation implies a participation in Godâs life and in Christ.
The theme of âsynergyâ is thus, without surprise, one of the key disputed notions in the dialogue between Protestants and Orthodox â and a âmarkerâ of the deep-reaching differences that exist between these traditions. In spite â or perhaps especially because â of these divergences, the themes of human freedom and responsibility remain highly significant and interesting topics for the dialogue between the Protestants and Orthodox traditions. One promising avenue as the dialogue continues is to ponder always anew the âdisagreements within the agreements,â and vice versa.38
2.3 Divinization (Theosis) as the Telos of Human (and Christian) Existence
How do Orthodox and Lutheran view human existence in its origin, as created in Godâs image and likeness, as marked by sin, and as reconciled and redeemed? A number of convergences can be seen, but undoubtedly significant divergences are present as well. It is not possible to review and ponder them all here. On the topic of the horizon, or goal (telos) of human existence, the Orthodox tradition places a key emphasis on the notion of theosis, or divinization. In his dialogue with the Lutherans of Tübingen, Patriarch Jeremias II already signaled the importance of divinization, in relation to justification, which appeared to be too narrow a focus to him.39 What is the meaning of this doctrine? In their papers, archbishop Job of Telmessos and Reinhard Flogaus give detailed answers to that question. Reinhard Flogaus mentions the discovery, by certain Lutheran scholars, especially in Finland since the 1970s, of certain strands, in Lutherâs own theology, which appear to point in the direction of a doctrine of the human personâs divinization.40 The Finnish school may have exaggerated the importance of the theme of deification in Lutherâs thought, but Reinhard Flogaus shows that, even if it was not a key topic for him, Luther knew of it (directly from the German mystical tradition, rather than from the Greek Fathers) and mentioned it in his writings, especially in connection with what he called the âjoyous exchange,â in which God takes what characterizes us, i.e. sin, and gives us what characterizes God, i.e. justice and holiness. But this transfer is not visible to our eyes, and when it happens, it happens sub contrario, that is, under its opposite.41 And so Flogaus suggests a middle-way, between the enthusiastic proposal of the Finnish school concerning Lutherâs basic agreement with Orthodoxy on the topic of divinization, and a certain interpretation of Luther which loses sight of the breadth of his doctrine of justification and sanctification, reducing it to a forensic or judicial act, to a purely external verdict which does not affect the human being as such. Therefore, âclear differencesâ remain between the Lutheran and the Orthodox understanding of salvation. The question, then, is: ought these differences to divide us? Can we be in communion with each other even as we do not share the exact same view of salvation? To raise this question means raising the question of a âdifferentiated consensusâ (consensus différencié), which has become a key aspect of ecumenical dialogue in recent decades.
3 The Contents of the Present Book
How should Orthodox theologians view Lutherâs theological program, more specifically his central assertion concerning justification which is received without any merit from the part of the human being, and thus âthrough faith aloneâ (sola fide)? John Zizioulas addresses this question in his contribution, which provides a nuanced assessment of Lutherâs views on faith and on what the reformer took to be the proper theme of faith and Christian theology, namely the cross of Jesus Christ as the central event of salvation. Lutherâs thought, and the Reformation it provoked, deserve a âmore positiveâ consideration from Eastern Christians, since the Reformation âwas a movement and an attempt to listen and to respond to the Word and will of Godâ (3). In breaking from medieval scholasticism and presenting divine grace as an utterly unconditional reality (not just sola fide, but, as the other side of the same coin, sola gratia), Luther retrieved a sense of the freedom of Godâs act, and consequently also the freedom of the Christian before God, that is, âfreedom from the givenâ (8). But does not the reformerâs focus on the event of Good Friday as the decisive salvific event direct our attention to the past, as the historical event of Godâs overcoming of sin, instead of orientating us toward the future, final liberation from death? And does not the focus on the cross as the justification of sinful human beings restrict to humanity Godâs cosmic redemptive action? In a final section, John Zizioulas considers the oft rehearsed accusation of âindividualismâ in Lutherâs thought, confirming that there are indeed clear signs of individualist tendencies in his thought. These have to do with the reformerâs understanding of faith as a decision âeach one is called to make alone before Godâ (13).
A major theological change introduced by the Reformation in anthropology concerns the image of God, according to Beate Bengard. In the 40 theses of his Disputation Concerning Man (Disputatio de homine), Martin Luther does not consider, unlike the preceding medieval tradition, that the difference between human beings and animals lies in the capacities of reason, or in any human qualities or abilities. It is the relationship with God that makes the human being unique. But in the Fall, the human being lost completely the image of (and resemblance to) God, because Adam went away from the relationship with God. Reason will be of no help; the only way of redemption is the Son, Jesus Christ. As God present in humanity, Christ represents both the image of God and the image of human beings. The complete restoration of the image of God, however, remains a struggle and a spiritual trial (simul justus, simul peccator). And not only the soul, but also the body is a field of experience of both the goodness of Godâs creation and the ambivalence of human life. On the redemptive journey toward the restoration of the image of God, human beings are permanently challenged, physically and mentally. How then does Lutherâs position on the image of God relate to contemporary Orthodox thought? In an essentialist perspective, Luther considers the âimago Deiâ as a characteristic that men and women irretrievably lost through the Fall. Under the influence of the philosophy of language, recent Protestant theology develops a new view of human life under the promise of the âimago Dei.â This gives rise to new perspectives for the Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue.
In a second chapter dedicated to the theme of humanity created âin Godâs image and resemblance,â Kallistos Ware shows how Orthodoxy has interpreted Gen 1:26, a verse which is âthe foundation, the polestar, of all Orthodox Christian anthropologyâ (50). Beginning with a reminder of the fact that each human being is irreducibly unique, this chapter argues that we can consider each person as an icon of God, a âfinite expression of Godâs infinite self-expressionâ (50). The claim that human beings are created âin Godâs imageâ prohibits any definition or understanding of human personhood on its own terms, in abstraction from the Creator. It is only in relation with the Creator that who we are as human beings becomes intelligible; and, similarly, because God is Triune, it is only in relation with other human beings that we become who we are, namely human persons. Starting with Irenaeus of Lyon, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, early Christian theologians began to identify the âimageâ with a particular gift given in the beginning, and âlikenessâ with something yet to come, i.e. an eschatological reality. This confers an undeniable dynamism to the interpretation of the imago Dei. Another key aspect of an Orthodox theology of the divine âimageâ concerns the holistic view of the human person, comprising not just the soul, but also the spirit and the body, which are basic elements of human beingsâ lives as Godâs creatures. Finally, being created in Godâs image means human beings are free: free to become who they truly are, rather than copies of each other.
Christophe Chalamet examines some aspects of Lutherâs teaching on sin. In opposition to standard medieval distinctions (e.g. venial vs. mortal sin), sin becomes a reality which characterizes fallen human nature as such, and not just certain deeds (or omissions). At the same time, Luther opposes all âmetaphysicalâ (he repeatedly uses this term) interpretations of sin which abstract it from our concrete lives. Lutherâs radicalized interpretation of sin is buttressed by a close reading of the Scriptures, in particular Psalm 50 (51), a key text for Christian theology in relation to the theme of human sinfulness. The implications of human sinfulness are numerous: they include a strict assertion of the bondage of the will, and a restricting of âfreedomâ to God, to the point where âfreedomâ becomes one of the divine ânames.â But if human beings cannot but sin, does this mean they are in fact not responsible for their sinful actions? No! Here Luther distinguishes between acts which happen ânecessarily,â or âby the necessity of immutabilityâ (69), and acts which result from external âcompulsion.â Human beings sin of their own accord and with a ready will. How should we assess Lutherâs views on sin today? Is he a âpessimist,â in his view of human beings, and should we promote a more optimistic vision, half a millennium after him? As much as his thought bothers us and even scandalizes us, we should not rush to throw his radical views on sin overboard. Rather, we should make sure to clarify, at all times, that a theology of sin does not make any sense unless sin is interpreted in light of Godâs grace and mercy.
In the footsteps of the previous contribution, Stavros Yangazoglou presents several important aspects from the Orthodox tradition on human sinfulness and the eschatological horizon of redemption. The root of sin is directly related to the fact that human beings, relying on their own strength and on their own faculties, become âa self-idol,â a god in the place of God (84). And yet sin never completely destroys Godâs image within human beings: this image is darkened, but not suppressed. This means that free will, too, although severely weakened, remains to some extent effective, and thus it is possible for humanity to âvoluntarily return to divine adoptionâ and develop âin the fullnessâ of their ârelationship with Godâ (85). As Orthodox theology presents it, salvation is much larger than the healing of a fallen nature. Rather, its aim is deification. The Fall and sin never attain a central status: they are a negative episode which needs to be constantly kept in a relativizing relation to the gift of salvation in Christ. This gift comes, first and foremost, from Godâs initiative, but it entails a participation (synergy) from the side of the human, as there is no coercive element in redemption. An active and free consent must be present from the part of human beings. Seen from an Orthodox perspective, Lutherâs thought appears to be âanthropomonist,â i.e. centered on the human and on the individual, to the detriment of a broader vision of the world as Godâs creation. Luther can thus be seen as âthe source that gave birth to the modern rational subjectâ (95).
For all his talk about the âbondageâ of the will, Luther was, undoubtedly, a theologian of âfreedom.â Hans-Christoph Askani warns us not to confuse too quickly and directly what Luther meant by this term with what modernity has meant (and still means) by it. A key difference between the meanings of âfreedomâ in Lutherâs thought and in modernity has to do with the fact that, for the reformer, freedom no longer makes sense when it is abstracted from the relationship between God and human beings. It is only âwithinâ this relationship, and thus as a ârelational event,â that talk of âfreedomâ becomes meaningful (115 and 117). Far from being a stable characteristic of human beings, freedom is conferred to them in an act: freedom is, thus, a freeing of human beings, a liberation. And it is only in this âbeing freedâ that one realizes one was previously enslaved. From what is the human person freed? From oneself; from oneâs own definition of oneself in such a way that one encloses oneself in oneself (116). The chapter ends with a reflection on the two ânaturesâ of the human, as Luther sees it: bodily and spiritual, outward and inward. This should not be interpreted as describing two parts or components of the human being, but rather as two ways of being in relation to oneself and to God, and thus as two orientations: one, freed by grace, opens up to God and lets God act, whereas the other closes itself against God.
On the same topic of freedom, Konstantinos Delikostantis points out that the real debate between Orthodox and Protestants should not center on the supposed âclosed interiorityâ of freedom, as if Luther had not implied for freedom to have concrete, external and indeed social implications. The real question, rather, concerns individualist tendencies in Lutherâs theology. The role of the individual and his faith, the assurance of Godâs grace given âpro me,â the centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith among all loci of Christian doctrine, raise questions among Orthodox believers, for whom the church is not the reality in which Christian freedom is exercised once human beings have been justified and freed by God, but rather the reality which renders Christian freedom possible to begin with. Ecclesiology is in no way a secondary locus in Orthodox theology, as the Church is the very condition for Christian existence and thus also for freedom. The theme of freedom remains crucial today, and âthe future of humanity is connected with the art of the comprehension of our freedomâs origin (
Any consideration of Lutherâs theological anthropology must address the central themes of âfaithâ and âjustification.â Henning TheiÃen addresses the anthropological dimension of these two terms, arguing that faith, in Lutherâs theology, primarily understood as fiducia, i.e. as trust or confidence, is not an epistemological or moral phenomenon, but an aesthetic one: it is less a matter of right or wrong, of good and evil, than a âmatter of taste that challenges the standards of right and wrong, good and evilâ (150). Turning to the topic of âjustificationâ and searching for its anthropological corollaries, the contribution explores the bridal metaphor Luther uses in his treatise On the Freedom of a Christian. This metaphor signals that we are in different waters than Anselmâs doctrine of âsatisfaction,â even as the notion of âsubstitutionâ (cf. the âjoyous exchangeâ) reappears. Luther may have drawn on the apostle Paul here â see 2 Cor 5:21, where Christ is presented as âmade to be sin for our sake so that we might become righteousness in him.â And whereas earlier scholars, associated with the Lutherrenaissance, over-emphasized the importance of âconscienceâ in Lutherâs thought, in more recent times the communal and indeed ecclesial dimension of justification have come to be expressed more clearly: âjustification is not an individualistic, but an ecclesial event which integrates every single believer into a community of justified sinnersâ (158), into the community of Godâs adopted children.
The purpose of Jack Khalilâs contribution, on faith and justification (as the preceding chapter), is to clarify what faith is according to the apostle Paul, and to clarify certain debatable issues that remain a point of difference in the bilateral ecumenical dialogues on the subject of faith. For Paul, it is customary to juxtapose law and faith when discussing the precondition of justification, because he believes that Godâs righteousness has always been granted on the basis of faith. In the âlaw of faith,â anyone who obeys Christâs word is justified, regardless of oneâs identity. This obedience to Christ is manifested in the exercise of love, which is the supreme commandment, because one who believes in Christ must love others. Faith must be manifested with good works, just as noted in James 2:14â19. Christ is the criterion for justification by faith, whereas justification is a gift from God, and this gift cannot be compared to anything which human beings may offer. Christ remains the sole author of righteousness from faith, and yet there is an interdependent relationship between faith in Christ and obedience to him. Faith necessarily expresses itself in the performance of deeds of love: without works of love, faith is nothing.
Reinhard Flogaus shows how, in the theological discussion of the last decades, some scholars have pointed the fundamental difference between the Protestant assertion of justification by faith alone (sola fide) and the concept of deification (
Job Getcha begins by stating that the orthodox teaching on theosis is rooted in the teaching of the Apostle Peter (2 Pet 1:3â4). Irenaeus of Lyon designated theosis as the goal of incarnation. Athanasius of Alexandria used the concept, within the theological quarrels of the fourth century over the identity of Christ, the Son of God, as a key soteriological argument for Nicene orthodoxy. Cyril of Alexandria used it in his theological argumentation against Nestorius. The theme of theosis was further developed in connection with the sacraments of the Church in the Dionysian corpus in relation to salvation. Gregory Palamas and Nicolas Cabasilas conceived deification as realized through the participation in the Church sacraments. Luther used the same concept in sermons in 1515 and 1526. Conversations between the Lutheran Church of Finland and the Orthodox Church of Russia between 1970 and 1986 focused on âsalvation interpreted as justification and deification,â and showed that the concepts of âjustificationâ and âdeificationâ were reconcilable. Since then, theosis has become a relatively popular theme in Lutheran theology. In 2013, the official dialogue between the Evangelical Church of Germany (EKD) and the Orthodox Church of Romania addressed the theme of âholiness and sanctification.â The question that arises within the discussion between Orthodox and Lutheran is whether this concept can be acceptable for both parties without the use of a set terminology.
Marc Vial suggests that Lutherâs two kingdoms doctrine, according to which God rules the world spiritually and temporally, i.e. by the means of the temporal authority, has been criticized for what some see as its consequences â its reception during the Third Reich by some German theologians fostered capitulation to the National Socialist regime â as well as for its very content, notably its departure from the Sermon on the Mountâs ethics. Without denying the problematic character of the Lutheran doctrine, this article contends that such a state of affairs highlights the problematic character of the Christianâs political commitment itself. The fundamental thesis reads thus: since the temporal authority receives a divine mandate to maintain the world and oppose all destructive powers threatening Godâs creation, Christians cannot but assist the exercise of this mission, even if it is frequently violent in nature. By acting in such a way, Christians admittedly transgress the commands of the Sermon on the Mount and forego some of their proper convictions. But such an act, far from expressing a lack of convictions, expresses here something like an excess of convictions. Since the Christianâs vocation consists in taking care of the world and therefore in taking account of the concrete situation of neighbors, particularly their needs and the threats to which they are subject, Christians forego any ideal image of themselves â including the image of those who âpurelyâ abide by the commands of the Sermon on the Mount. Christians must forego such an image. They may do it since they are liberated, by faith, from any need to have an ideal image of themselves. It may be that genuine sanctity consists in accepting to have dirty hands when it comes to help the neighbor, that is, in paying more attention to the worldâs concrete needs than to oneâs own reputation for sanctity.
Comparing Lutheran and Orthodox political theologies, in conversation with a recent study of Lutherâs theological vision of the political realm, Aristotle Papanikolaou shows some of the convergences that appear between the reformerâs views and an Orthodox perspective which articulates a political theology on the basis of theosis interpreted as âdivine-human communion.â Lutherâs (or the Lutheran) two-kingdom theory should not be conflated with a notion of two regiments, as if the temporal regiment could be identified with the kingdom of Satan. But what about political liberalism? Should it be seen as the enemy of a Lutheran or Orthodox political theology? Theosis should precisely not be interpreted as necessarily leading to the vision of a political realm in which theological principles carry hegemonic claims. On the contrary, it can be argued that the horizon of theosis may lead to a maximizing of pluralism, against any hegemonic tendencies buttressed by theological commitments. How does one avoid such tendencies, which are currently on display in the Russian Orthodox Church? By being reminded that theosis involves loving as God loves, i.e. loving not just those who are like us, but also â and primarily â the stranger and the enemy. Far from merely legitimizing all forms of political liberalism, an Orthodox political theology grounded in a robust account of theosis may help curtail some recent and current excesses in the direction of individualism and consumerism.
Turning to the topic of temptation, tribulation and spiritual assaults (tentatio, Anfechtung), Elisabeth Parmentier shows how these themes relate to the theme of âexperience,â including sensory experience, in Lutherâs thought, notably in his teaching on the sacraments. Anfechtung is an important aspect of Lutherâs theological anthropology, one that relates not so much to problems such as ill health, unfortunate or even tragic events, but rather to the presence of evil and the reality of the devil. It is the feeling of Godâs abandonment. This test must in fact be welcome, for through it one may find the true manifestation of God in Christ, beyond anything which human reason and wisdom might attain. Through the experience of this test, and through it alone, in a âjourney through biblical confrontation and the resulting crisisâ (266), one will learn to stand by Godâs Word, rejecting all of the idols of this world.
Conclusion
We are convinced that Orthodox and Protestants still have much to learn from, and share with, one another. Ignoring each other, as was the case so often in the past five hundred years, no longer is an option. How, and in what spirit, should they encounter each other? Georges Florovskyâs words in Athens during the First Congress of Orthodox Theology, in 1936, still indicate a promising way for Orthodox believers:
the independence vis-Ã -vis Western people, who believe differently, must not degenerate into an estrangement from them. For breaking away from the West does not as such guarantee a true and authentic liberation. Orthodox thought too must feel and endure all of the Western difficulties and challenges (Anfechtungen), right now it can and should not bypass or ignore it. This, however, means that he must encounter the West creatively and spiritually.42
Florovskyâs words are not an anomaly within the realm of Orthodoxy. In 1920, the encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate âUnto the Churches of Christ Everywhereâ had been a clarion call for an ecumenical commitment (a ârapprochement,â as is stated in several sentences of the text) from the part of Orthodoxy with other Christians around the world.43
The Institute of Postgraduate Studies of Orthodox Theology, in Chambésy, is one among several institutions, rooted in Orthodoxy, which is promoting this kind of âencounter.â44 And there is little doubt that Protestants, too, have much to gain from learning more about Orthodoxy and from engaging in dialogue with that tradition. The present book and the conference from which it originates are two modest steps in a series of efforts which have been made these past decades.
Protestants and Orthodox must continue to talk to one another, to ponder the Scriptures together, to learn from their respective traditions and practices. Both need to keep elaborating a theology which does not simply oppose tradition and modernity, but which articulates them.45 In this dialogue, we build on what has been achieved before us, but we also need to begin always anew. As Luther put it: âproficere est nihil aliud, nisi semper incipereâ (âto make progress is nothing else than always to beginâ).46
â¦
Our gratitude goes to the staff at Brill, especially Ingrid Heijckers-Velt and Anita Opdam, for their remarkable work in producing this book, to the series editors for welcoming this manuscript, to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions, and last but not least to Apolline Thromas and Elio Jaillet for their very efficient work on the manuscript and the index respectively.
References
Aagaard, Anna Marie, and Peter Bouteneff. Beyond the East-West Divide. The World Council of Churches and âthe Orthodox Problem.â Geneva: WCC Publications, 2001.
Alivisatos, Hamilcar S., ed. Procès-verbaux du premier congrès de théologie orthodoxe à Athènes, 29 novembreâ6 décembre 1936. Athens: Pyrsos, 1939.
Asproulis, Nikolaos. âThe Encounter between Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism. A Historical and Theological Assessment.â The Ecumenical Review 69/2 (2017): 215â224.
Ben-Tov, Asaph. Lutheran Humanists and Greek Antiquity. Melanchthonian Scholarship Between Universal History and Pedagogy. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Benz, Ernst. Wittenberg und Byzanz. Zur Begegnung und Auseinandersetzung der Reformation und der östlich-orthodoxen Kirche. 2nd ed. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1971.
Benz, Ernst. Die Ostkirche im Lichte der protestantischen Geschichtsschreibung, von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart. Freiburg/Munich: Karl Alber, 1952.
Braaten, Carl E., and Robert W. Jenson, eds. Union with Christ. The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998.
Bretschneider, Karl Gottlieb, and Heinrich Ernst Bindseil, eds. Philippi Melanthonis Opera quae supersunt omnia. Halle: Schwetschke, 1843.
La Confession de Foy de Cyrille Patriarche de Constantinople. Geneva: Pierre Aubert, 1629.
Delikostantis, Konstantinos. âUn regard orthodoxe sur Martin Luther.â Unité des Chrétiens 181 (2016): 15â17.
Delikostantis, Konstantinos. âMartin Luther and the Orthodox Church.â Lutheran Forum 45/3 (2011): 36â41.
Delikostantis, Konstantinos. Lâethos della libertà . Translated by A. Ranzolini. Sotto il Monte: Servitium, 1997.
Flogaus, Reinhard. âEine orthodoxe Interpretation der lutherischen Lehre? Neue Erkenntnisse zur Entstehung der Confessio Augustana Graeca und ihrer Sendung an Patriarch Jeremias II.â In Orthodoxie im Dialog. Historische und aktuelle Perspektiven, edited by Reinhard Flogaus and Jennifer Wasmuth, 3â42. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015.
Florovsky, Georges. âThe Orthodox Churches and the Ecumenical Movement Prior to 1910.â In A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517â1948, edited by Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill, 4th ed., 169â215. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2004.
Florovsky, Georges. âThe Orthodox Churches and the Ecumenical Movement Prior to 1910.â In Christianity and Culture. Collected Works, 2:161â231. Belmont: Nordland, 1974.
Florovsky, Georges. âWestliche Einflüsse in der russischen Theologie.â In Procès-verbaux du premier congrès de théologie orthodoxe à Athènes, 29 novembreâ6 décembre 1936, edited by Hamilcar S. Alivisatos. Athens: Pyrsos, 1939.
Göz, Wilhelm, and Ernst Conrad, eds. Diarium Martini Crusii 1596â1597. Tübingen: Laupp, 1927.
Holm, Bo. âDen Luthersk-Ortodokse Dialog (1997â2000).â Nordisk Ekumenisk Orientering 3 (2002): 5â10.
Jorgenson, Wayne James. âThe Augustana Graeca and the Correspondence between the Tübingen Lutherans and Patriarch Jeremias.â Ph.D. diss., Boston University, 1979.
Kalaitzidis, Pantelis, Thomas FitzGerald, Cyril Hovorun, Aikaterini Pekridou, Nikolaos Asproulis, Guy Liagre, and Dietrich Werner, eds. Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism. Resources for Theological Education. Oxford: Regnum Books International, 2014.
Kallis, A. âConfessio Augustana Graeca. Orthodoxie und Reformation in ihrer theologischen Begegnung (1559â1581).â In Confessio Augustana und Confutatio. Der Augsburger Reichstag 1530 und die Einheit der Kirche, edited by Erwin Iserloh and Barbara Hallensleben, 668â672. Münster: Aschendorff, 1980.
Karmiris, John. Dogmatica et Symbolica Monumenta Orthodoxae Catholicae Ecclesiae. Vol. 2. Athens/Graz: Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt, 1968.
Kinnamon, Michael, and Brian E. Cope, eds. The Ecumenical Movement. An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices. Geneva: WCC Publications, 1997.
Korte, Berthold F. âEarly Lutheran Relations with the Eastern Orthodox.â The Lutheran Quarterly 9/1 (1957): 53â59.
Luther et la Réforme allemande dans une perspective oecuménique. Chambésy/Geneva: Ãditions du Centre orthodoxe du Patriarcat oecuménique, 1983.
Meimaris, Theodore. âThirty Years of the International Theological Dialogue Between Orthodox and Lutherans (1981â2011). Evaluation and Prospects.â Nicolaus 40/1 (2013): 159â186.
Meyendorff, John, and Robert Tobias, eds. Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992.
Nikitin, Augustin. âOrthodox-Lutheran Contacts in Russia since the Reformation.â Journal of Ecumenical Studies 23/2 (1986): 251â265.
Nikitin, Augustin. âOrthodox-lutherische Beziehungen im Spiegel der Jahrhunderte. Zum 500. Geburtstag von Dr. Martin Luther.â Stimme der Orthodoxie 1 (1983).
Nissiotis, Nikos. âIs There a Church Ontology in Lutherâs Ecclesiology?â In Luther et la réforme allemande dans une perspective oecuménique, 403â426. Chambésy/Geneva: Ãditions du Centre orthodoxe du Patriarcat oecuménique, 1983.
PÄvÄlucÄ, VasilicÄ Mugurel. âEinige schriftliche Verweise Martin Luthers auf die Ostkirche.â Review of Ecumenical Studies 9/3 (2017): 360â370.
Pricop, Cosmin, and CÄtÄlina Bogdan. From Espoo to Paphos. The Theological Dialogue of the Orthodox Churches with the Lutheran World Federation (1981â2008). Bucharest: Basilica, 2013.
Saarinen, Risto. âLutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission.â Accessed July 17, 2019. https://blogs.helsinki.fi/ristosaarinen/lutheran-orthodox-dialogue/.
Saarinen, Risto. âLe dialogue luthérien-orthodoxe de 2004 à 2014.â Istina 59/4 (2014): 367â386.
Saarinen, Risto. âThe Lutheran-Orthodox Relationships and the Future of Ecumenism.â In Lutheranism. Legacy and Future, edited by Holger Roggelin, 375â395. West Conshohocken: Infinity Publishing, 2012.
Saarinen, Risto. âThe Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission. Our Work 1994â2003.â In Cracks in the Walls. Essays on Spirituality, Ecumenicity and Ethics, edited by Else Marie Wiberg and Johannes Nissen, 121â129. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2005.
Saarinen, Risto. Faith and Holiness. Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue 1959â1994. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997.
Schmemann, Alexander. The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy. Translated by Lydia W. Kesich. Crestwood: St. Vladimirâs Seminary Press, 1977.
Staniloae, Dumitru. âLe sens de la justification chez Luther. Quelques remarques orthodoxes.â In Luther et la Réforme allemande dans une perspective oecuménique, 185â195. Chambésy/Geneva: Ãditions du Centre orthodoxe du Patriarcat oecuménique, 1983.
Tempa, Tomasz. âKyrillos Loukaris and the Confessional Problems in the Polish- Lithuanian Commonwealth at the Turn of the Seventeenth Century.â Acta Plonia Historica 104 (2011): 103â128.
Traboulsi, Berge. âSome Aspects of Protestant-Orthodox Relations in Modern Times. A Historical Analysis.â Chronos. Revue dâhistoire de lâUniversité de Balamand 16 (2007): 69â94.
Wendebourg, Dorothea. Reformation und Orthodoxie. Der ökumenische Briefwechsel zwischen der Leitung der Württembergischen Kirche und Patriarch Jeremias II. von Konstantinopel in den Jahren 1573â1581. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.
Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider and Heinrich Ernst Bindseil, eds., Philippi Melanthonis Opera quae supersunt omnia (Halle: Schwetschke, 1843), (Corpus Reformatorum: hereafter CR), XI:676.
Georges Florovsky, âWestliche Einflüsse in der russischen Theologie,â in Procès-verbaux du premier congrès de théologie orthodoxe à Athènes, 29 novembreâ6 décembre 1936, ed. Hamilcar S. Alivisatos (Athens: Pyrsos, 1939), 231.
These scholars are: His Excellency Metr. Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, Stavros Yangazoglou, Konstantinos Delikostantis, Jack Khalil, His Excellency Job (Getcha), Aristotle Papanikolaou, Tamara Grdzelidze and His Eminence Metr. John (Zizioulas). Except for Metr. John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon, who gave the final keynote lecture, they were paired with seven Protestant scholars: Beate Bengard, Christophe Chalamet, Hans-Christoph Askani, Henning TheiÃen, Reinhard Flogaus, Marc Vial, and Elisabeth Parmentier.
See, however: John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias, eds., Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran- Orthodox Dialogue (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992), or Luther et la Réforme allemande dans une perspective Åcuménique (Chambésy/Geneva: Ãditions du Centre orthodoxe du Patriarcat oecuménique, 1983); more references are given below.
â[â¦] nam nec ego hoc nego, si consenserint totius orbis fideles in Romanum vel Parisiensem vel Magdeburgensem vel quemcunque, ut esset primus pontifex et summus, hunc propter reverentiam totius ecclesie fidelium sic consentientis habendum esse summum monarcham. Hoc autem neque factum est unquam neque fit neque fiet, cum usque ad nostra tempora greca ecclesia non consenserit neque tamen sit habita heretica.â Weimarer Ausgabe [hereafter WA] 2, 258,38â259,4. See VasilicÄ Mugurel PÄvÄlucÄ, âEinige schriftliche Verweise Martin Luthers auf die Ostkirche,â Review of Ecumenical Studies 9/3 (2017): 365â67.
âIam illud magis urget, quod greca ecclesia usque ad nostra tempora nunquam accepit episcopos suos confirmatos ex Romana.â WA 2, 276,14â15.
Ernst Benz, Wittenberg und Byzanz. Zur Begegnung und Auseinandersetzung der Reformation und der östlich-orthodoxen Kirche, 2nd ed. (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1971), 18â22 (1st ed. 1949).
âSed in hanc ingresso historiam, cum patriam et domicilium Basilii mente intueor, quasi peragrans loca illa Asiae, cogitatio vastitatis quam Turci in illa florentissima et pulcherrima parte orbis terrarum fecerunt, ingentem dolorem attulit. [â¦] Nunc vero quis non doleat, cum florentissimas illas Ecclesias et politias in Turcarum stabula et mapalia versas esse audimus, plena impietatis, spurcitiae et crudelitatis: qua de re cogitantes, non solum Asiae calamitate doleamus, sed etiam nostro periculo moveamur. Si arcere Turcas volumus, et vastitatem Asianae similem metuimus, causae tollendae sunt, flectenda est ira Dei veris officiis pietatis, qua de re alia saepe dicitur.â Ph. Melanchthon, âOratio de Basilio Episcopo Caesariensi.â CR XI:677. See Asaph Ben-Tov, Lutheran Humanists and Greek Antiquity. Melanchthonian Scholarship Between Universal History and Pedagogy (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 192 (Ben-Tovâs translation, revised).
See e.g. Berthold F. Korte, âEarly Lutheran Relations with the Eastern Orthodox,â The Lutheran Quarterly 9/1 (1957): 55â57.
See Reinhard Flogaus, âEine orthodoxe Interpretation der lutherischen Lehre? Neue Erkenntnisse zur Entstehung der Confessio Augustana Graeca und ihrer Sendung an Patriarch Joasaph II,â in Orthodoxie im Dialog. Historische und aktuelle Perspektiven, ed. Reinhard Flogaus and Jennifer Wasmuth (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 3â42.
In light of his stay in Wittenberg, Demetrios will be able to render witness to this: âCommemorare ergo poterit, nos vera pietate retinere sacras literas tam Prophetarum, quam Apostolorum: sanctarum etiam synodorum de dogmatibus canones, atque patrum doctrinam: Irenaei, Athanasii, Basilii, Gregorii, Epiphanii, Theodoreti, aliorumque, qui cum his consentiunt [â¦].â Letter from Melanchthon to Patriarch Ioasaph II, September 25, 1559, in CR IX:922â24 (nr. 6825) (for the Latin translation: IX:921â22).
Reinhard Flogaus, âEine orthodoxe Interpretation der lutherischen Lehre?,â 41â42; Ernst Benz, Die Ostkirche im Lichte der protestantischen Geschichtsschreibung, von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart (Freiburg/Munich: Karl Alber, 1952), 18â19.
Cyrillic and glagolithic translations followed in 1562. See Augustin Nikitin, âOrthodox- lutherische Beziehungen im Spiegel der Jahrhunderte. Zum 500. Geburtstag von Dr. Martin Luther,â Stimme der Orthodoxie 1 (1983): 22. See also Wayne James Jorgenson, âThe Augustana Graeca and the Correspondence between the Tübingen Lutherans and Patriarch Jeremiasâ (Ph.D. diss., Boston University, 1979); A. Kallis, âConfessio Augustana Graeca. Orthodoxie und Reformation in ihrer theologischen Begegnung (1559â1581),â in Confessio Augustana und Confutatio. Der Augsburger Reichstag 1530 und die Einheit der Kirche, ed. Erwin Iserloh and Barbara Hallensleben (Münster: Aschendorff, 1980), 668â72; Dorothea Wendebourg, Reformation und Orthodoxie. Der ökumenische Briefwechsel zwischen der Leitung der Württembergischen Kirche und Patriarch Jeremias II. von Konstantinopel in den Jahren 1573â1581 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986).
John Karmiris, Dogmatica et Symbolica Monumenta Orthodoxae Catholicae Ecclesiae, vol. 2 (Athens/Graz: Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt, 1968), 569; see also Alexander Schmemann, The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy, trans. Lydia W. Kesich (Crestwood: St. Vladimirâs Seminary Press, 1977), 285, whose translation we slightly revise.
See Ben-Tov, Lutheran Humanists and Greek Antiquity. Martin Crusius wrote to Jeremias II on July 18, 1597. The Patriarch had died two years earlier (Sept. 1595). For this letter, see Wilhelm Göz and Ernst Conrad, eds., Diarium Martini Crusii 1596â1597 (Tübingen: Laupp, 1927), 368.
Tomasz Tempa, âKyrillos Loukaris and the Confessional Problems in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at the Turn of the Seventeenth Century,â Acta Plonia Historica 104 (2011): 103â28, esp. 125â28.
La Confession de Foy de Cyrille Patriarche de Constantinople (Geneva: Pierre Aubert, 1629), esp. art. 3 and 18 (the original, handwritten manuscript of Loukarisâ Confession is pre-served at the Bibliothèque de Genève, Ms. gr. 37â38). See e.g. Georges Florovskyâs comments on Loukaris in his article âThe Orthodox Churches and the Ecumenical Movement Prior to 1910,â in A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517â1948, ed. Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill, 4th ed. (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2004), 169â215. Florovsky writes: Loukaris âstands out as the most remarkable figure in the history of the Orthodox Churches since the capture of Constantinople by the Turks (1453), and he is still widely venerated in Greece, and in Crete, his native island, as a great national leader and martyr.â Loukaris was executed by orders of the Sultan Murad. His Confession, first published in Latin in Geneva (1629), and which is quite Calvinist in tone and substance, was soon officially refuted by the Orthodox Church. Cyril Loukaris has been canonized by the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 2009.
Florovsky, âWestliche Einflüsse,â 217, 222. See also Georges Florovsky, âThe Orthodox Churches and the Ecumenical Movement Prior to 1910,â in Christianity and Culture. Collected Works, vol. 2 (Belmont: Nordland, 1974), 181â86.
Florovsky, âWestliche Einflüsse,â 222â23.
Nikitin, âOrthodox-lutherische Beziehungen im Spiegel der Jahrhunderte,â 29â30.
Florovsky, âWestliche Einflüsse,â 225 and 230.
See Berge Traboulsi, âSome Aspects of Protestant-Orthodox Relations in Modern Times. A Historical Analysis,â Chronos. Revue dâhistoire de lâUniversité de Balamand 16 (2007): 74â75.
On the relations between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy, with an emphasis on Russia and Finland as well as on the presence of Lutheranism in Eastern countries, see Nikitin, âOrthodox-lutherische Beziehungen im Spiegel der Jahrhunderteâ; Augustin Nikitin, âOrthodox-Lutheran Contacts in Russia since the Reformation,â Journal of Ecumenical Studies 23/2 (1986): 251â65; Traboulsi, âSome Aspects of Protestant-Orthodox Relations in Modern Timesâ; Konstantinos Delikostantis, âMartin Luther and the Orthodox Church,â Lutheran Forum 45/3 (2011): 36â41; Nikolaos Asproulis, âThe Encounter between Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism. A Historical and Theological Assessment,â The Ecumenical Review 69/2 (2017): 215â24.
Karmiris, Dogmatica et Symbolica, 2:969â70; Traboulsi, âSome Aspects of Protestant- Orthodox Relations in Modern Times,â 75.
See e.g. the volume edited Meyendorff and Tobias, Salvation in Christ.
Hamilcar S. Alivisatos, ed., Procès-verbaux du premier congrès de théologie orthodoxe à Athènes, 29 novembreâ6 décembre 1936 (Athens: Pyrsos, 1939), 27, 39. G. Florovskyâs speech is found on pages 212â31, in German translation. The main Protestant observers were the Church historian Hans Koch (Univ. of Königsberg), the archaeologist Hermann Tiersch (Univ. of Göttingen), the Reformed and Swiss scholar Fritz Lieb (Univ. of Zürich), who specialized in Eastern Orthodox thought, and Ernst Schäfer, the pastor of the Protestant parish in Athens and a specialist of Christian archeology (Alivisatos, Procès-verbaux du premier congrès de théologie orthodoxe (1936), 40).
âLâépoque qui précède notre siècle pourrait être appelée lâère de la division, pour lâétroitesse, pour lâobstination dans les conceptions des divers milieux, des milieux théologiques surtout, qui, dans la discussion théologique sur les formules et sur la conception unilatérale, souvent oubliaient entièrement la substance principale de la religion chrétienne elle-même. Lâépoque qui suit la guerre, indépendamment des résultats, de certitude peut-être douteuse, quâaura lâeffort unitaire qui sâeffectue, peut être appelée, ne serait-ce que pour cet effort, sa nature et son caractère, lâère de lâunion, du renouement et du réveil graduel dâune conscience chrétienne unique.â âDiscours dâouverture prononcé par M. le Professeur Hamilcar Alivisatos, Professeur de Droit canon, Président du Congrès,â in Alivisatos, Procès-verbaux du premier congrès de théologie orthodoxe (1936), 57.
On June 10, 1949, Karl Barth gave a talk, titled âDer Skandal der uneinigen Kircheâ (unpublished; Karl Barth Archiv, Basel, nr. 11210), in which he praises Florovskyâs contribution to âsection Iâ of the Amsterdam Conference. Barth describes Florowsky as âsmart and always happy to enter into dialogueâ (âklug und immer diskussionsfreudigâ; page 2), but also as wary of any enthusiastic interpretation of the gathering in Amsterdam and cautioning against any optimist prediction concerning the unity of all Christians (pages 8â9).
Here are some of the topics of these encounters: III (1985): revelation; IV (1987) : Scripture and Tradition; V (1989): the canon and the inspiration of Scripture; VII (1993): the ecumenical councils; VIII (1995): salvation in light of the ecumenical councils; IX (1998): salvation (grace, justification, and synergy); X (2000): Word and sacraments in the life of the Church; XI (2002): the sacraments as means of salvation; XII (2004): baptism and chrismation; XIII (2006) and XIV (2008): the Church and the Eucharist; XV (2011): the nature, attributes, and mission of the Church; XVI (2015) and XVII (2017): the ordained ministry. See Risto Saarinen, Faith and Holiness. Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue 1959â1994 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), and, by the same author: âThe Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission. Our Work 1994â2003,â in Cracks in the Walls. Essays on Spirituality, Ecumenicity and Ethics, ed. Else Marie Wiberg and Johannes Nissen (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2005), 121â29; âThe Lutheran-Orthodox Relationships and the Future of Ecumenism,â in Lutheranism. Legacy and Future, ed. Holger Roggelin (West Conshohocken: Infinity Publishing, 2012), 375â95; âLe dialogue luthérien-orthodoxe de 2004 à 2014,â Istina 59/4 (2014): 367â86; see also on his blog âLutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission,â accessed July 17, 2019,
Saarinen, âLe dialogue luthérien-orthodoxe de 2004 à 2014,â 371.
On these difficulties see Anna Marie Aagaard and Peter Bouteneff, Beyond the East-West Divide. The World Council of Churches and âthe Orthodox Problemâ (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2001).
Nikolaos Asproulis makes a similar comment in âThe Encounter between Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism,â 221. For a very positive sign of continued commitment to ecumenical dialogue among the Orthodox, see the Pantelis Kalaitzidis et al., eds., Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism. Resources for Theological Education (Oxford: Regnum Books International, 2014), as well as the impressive work which is being done at the Volos Academy for Theological Studies (Greece).
Nikos Nissiotis, âIs There a Church Ontology in Lutherâs Ecclesiology?,â in Luther et la réforme allemande dans une perspective oecuménique (Chambésy/Geneva: Ãditions du Centre orthodoxe du Patriarcat oecuménique, 1983), 423â24.
On the topic of freedom in Lutherâs thought, from a Greek Orthodox standpoint, see Konstantinos Delikostantis various publications, including: âUn Regard Orthodoxe Sur Martin Luther,â Unité des Chrétiens 181 (2016): 15â17, and Lâethos della libertà , trans. A. Ranzolini (Sotto il Monte: Servitium, 1997).
See Saarinen, Faith and Holiness, 245, with reference to a 1996 study on the theme of synergy by Reinhard Flogaus.
Dumitru Staniloaeâs article, âLe sens de la justification chez Luther. Quelques remarques orthodoxes,â in Luther et la Réforme allemande dans une perspective oecuménique (Chambésy/Geneva: Ãditions du Centre orthodoxe du Patriarcat oecuménique, 1983), 185â95, is quite typical in this regard. The topic of âsynergyâ was discussed in the official global dialogue between the Lutheran World Federation and Eastern Orthodoxy in Sigtuna, Sweden (1998). No decisive breakthrough occurred, but some convergences (on theosis understood as participation in Godâs life; on synergy in relation to sanctification) were found at that meeting, so that, according to Risto Saarinen, âthe text adopted in Sigtuna remains the most important theological result of the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission thus far.â Saarinen, âThe Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission. Our Work 1994â2003,â 125. The text adopted in Sigtuna can be consulted here:
See Saarinen, Faith and Holiness, 249. Given this statement, one is surprised to read, on the same page, âthat probably a sufficient amount of convergence is reached and that no further reconciliation between Western and Eastern vocabularies concerning salvation is needed.â
This is how Karl Barth put it in his lecture from June 10, 1949, looking back at the Amsterdam Assembly. K. Barth. âDer Skandal der uneinigen Kirche,â 8 (unpublished lecture; Karl Barth Archiv, Basel, nr. 11210).
See Flogaus, below (189).
The main theses of the Finnish school have found the support of two well-known North-American theologians: see Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, eds., Union with Christ. The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998).
See below (203, 207).
âAndrerseits muss die Unabhängigkeit vom andersgläubigen Westen nicht in eine Entfremdung ihm gegenüber ausarten. Denn der Bruch mit dem Westen gibt noch keine wahre und echte Befreiung. Auch der orthodoxe Gedanke muss alle westlichen Schwierigkeiten und Anfechtungen erfühlen und durchleiden, gegenwärtig kann und darf er sie nicht mehr umgehen oder totschweigen. Dies führt aber dazu, dass er dem Westen schöpferisch und geistig begegnen muss.â Florovsky, âWestliche Einflüsse,â 231.
For this encyclical, see Michael Kinnamon and Brian E. Cope, eds., The Ecumenical Movement. An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1997), 11â14.
See, as case in point, this volume, the proceedings of conferences held in Chambésy in AprilâMay 1982: Luther et la Réforme allemande dans une perspective Åcuménique, vol. 3 (Chambésy/Geneva: Ãditions du Centre orthodoxe du Patriarcat oecuménique, 1983). Among the contributors are Harding Meyer, Nikos Nissiotis, Heiko Oberman, Dumitru Staniloae, and (the only theologian present both in 1982 and in the present volume!) bishop Kallistos Ware. See also the Volos Academy for Theological Studies (see above, note 32) and the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University, and several other institutions.
See Saarinen, âLe dialogue luthérien-orthodoxe de 2004 à 2014,â 383.
LW 11:477; WA 4,350,14 (Dictata super Psalterium, 1513â16; on Ps 119/118:88). Quoted by Reinhard Flogaus, below, 205.