St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 55:4 (2012) 399436

Can O rth o do x Theology Be C ontextual?

Vladan Perisic

W hat Is Contextual Theology?

In the expression contextual theology the word contextual is
understood as the opposite of the words universal, absolute,
or traditional. So universal theology would be a theology
independent of context or unaware of its cultural, social, political,
and any other condition, while contextual theology would be
a theology that recognizes its context.1 Or even more accurately:
while every theology is de facto context-dependent, not every
theology is however conscious of that dependence.2 Contextual
theology underlines the dependence of the theological idiom on
every kind of its conditionality. As a result it insists that there is
no universal perspective in theology (but only a kind o f openness
toward a universal perspective), for each expression is embedded in
an existing culture.3
According to those who protest against disregarding the local
character of theologizing, the New Testament itself serves as an
example of contextual theology.4 There has never been a pure or
1
2

God scarcely will be found beyond but in context (Sigurd Bergmann, A Survey o f
Contextual Theology [Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2003], xv).
Contextual theology is an interpretation o f Christian faith, which arises in the
consciousness o f its context (ibid., 4, italics V.P.).
Although it would be an exaggeration to suppose that this implies an uncritical
adoption o f that culture, many advocates o f contextual theology give that impression.
The approach o f contextual theology is not anything new. It rather expresses an
aspiration for reconstruction and interpreting anew a theological self-understanding and method, which has been in use before the historical pattern which started
to spread during the Renaissance and which still today modernizes the whole biosphere (S. Bergmann, op. cit., 16). ... There has never been a genuine theology that
was articulated in an ivory tower with no referent to or dependence on the events,

399

400

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

cultureless (but only a JewishGreek-Roman culture-conditioned)

Gospel. For example, all the names given to Jesus in the New
Testament were already-existing religious names of Jewish or
Greek origin.5 By understanding the meanings of those names, his
audience, and also (in later times) the readers of his words written
in the Gospels, could give him his place in their lives.6 O f course,
the meaning of these names was not fixed forever, but underwent
transformation in the course of history.7 Naturally, Jesus names are
only one example of the importance of respecting the contextual
here and now. Therefore, the role of culture in the understanding
of the New Testament cannot be disputed.
Analyzing critically the role of culture in the New Testament,
we should always be aware that in the Jewish-Greek-Roman
culture, the Gospel was not something that was accepted as selfevident, but was rather viewed as an alien element detrimental to
the indigenous cultures (equally Jewish, Greek, or Roman).8 And
generally speaking, we can equally consider every culture both as
a bearer of and a hindrance to the Gospels true meaning (which
brings us to the questionwhat is the real role of the context in
contextual theology: to reveal or to hide the intended meaning of
the message ?). In today s pluralistic world we can accept more easily
than ever in our history that we should be sensitive to the culturally

5
6
7
8

the thought forms, or the culture o f its particular place and time (Stephen Bevans,
W hat has Contextual Theology to Offer to the Church o f the 21st Century, Mission in Context Lecture, Church Mission Society, Oxford, October 15, 2009).
E.g., rabbi, messiah, prophet, son o f God, son o f Man, saviour, Word,
Truth, etc., etc.
Compare K. H. Ohlig, Fundamentalchristologie. Im Spannungsfeld von Christentum
und K ultur (Munich: Kosel, 1986), 6 2 0-21 .
J. D. G. Dunn ,Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making, Vol. I), (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 55 3 -54.
From the very beginning o f the proclamation o f the Gospel, we have to underscore
that the Gospel is a strange Gospel. We have to emphasize its over against character.
O ver against every culture the Greek culture as well. Hence, we have not only
to inquire what has been transmitted, but also what has been lost by the cultural
constraints o f the New Testament and early church era (E. Brinkman, Contextual
Theology without Ulterior Motives, in E. A. J. G. Van der Borght (ed.) Religion
without Ulterior M otive [Netherlands: Brill, 2006], 159-78).

Can Orthodox Theology Be Contextual

401

conditioned way of understanding the Gospel message, which

should (by intention) save us from, for example, a Eurocentric
interpretation of Christianity, and guard us against the imperialism
of western theology.9
One of the messages of contextual theology, therefore, is that
we are limited by our own cultures in our interpretation of the
Gospelthat is, in our very manner of asking questions, in our way
of approaching the text of the Bible, in how we choose some things
to be more important than others, and so forth. The next thing
we should have in mind is that the text o f the Bible is as equally
conditioned as is our understanding o f it. It has been sufficiently
shown in modern biblical science that the writers o f the Bible
wrote within a specific culture which determined in a specific way
how they would think and write. Learning this, we simultaneously
learn that we too are limited, and should therefore try to become
aware of in what wayssimilar or dissimilar to other cultures
we are limited, and also how this kind of (cultural) limitation
affects our doing theology.10 This shift in perspective (supposedly
achieved in contextual theology) should guide us in making sense
9

This reminds us that contextual theology in the modern sense explicitly appeared
on a large scale as Latin-American liberation theology, feminist theology, African
and North American black theology, Korean Minjung theology, Taiwanese third-eye
theology, Indian Dalit theology, Philippines people s power theology, Indonesian
Pancha Sila theology, and finally as eco-theology, to mention only the most popular.
These new contextual theologies, existing for only half a century, have emerged out
o f the pains, struggles, and desire o f people from these cultures to formulate their
own theologies (in contradistinction to traditional European theology) that would
make sense o f God who became man to live with us in the context o f everybodys
daily life.

10

We must always be attentive not only to the knowledge o f God but also to the
knowledge o f ourselves as human beings if we hope to practice an approach to theology that leads to wisdom. We must also be attentive to the fact that the knowledge
o f God and the knowledge o f ourselves are not available to us in the form o f timeless
and undisputed teaching. Instead, we learn from the history o f Christian thought
that doctrines and conceptions o f God and the nature o f the human condition, as
well as many other significant matters, have been developed and formulated in the
context o f numerous social, historical, and cultural settings and have in turn been
shaped by these settings (John Franke, The Character o f Theology: An Introduction to
Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, 14).

402

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

o f the Christian message in local circumstances, and in making faith

relevant to one s life situations.

Herm eneutical Problems o f Interpretation

Given that there is no pure, uninterpreted Gospel (as well as any
other text), the question is not whether we will have interpretation or
not, but whether this interpretation will be successful or not. Some
kind of interpretation is always present, independently of our being
conscious of that fact.11 In other words, our understanding always
presupposes a kind of /^-understanding.12 For our understanding
of the subject of investigation (i.e., the Gospel), it is better that we be
conscious of this, for it will nevertheless function even if we are not.
One of the main presuppositions that forms our pre-understanding
is our vital interest in the given subject-matter which reveals itself in
certain questions we ask.13 So, every text arises from some con-text
(and also enters some other context). The understanding of certain
phenomena requires the understanding of their context, but vice
versa, the very context is understandable only from the phenomena
we investigate.14 The question remains: what comes first?
Now, Gods words are given to us not directly, but as human words
in human context.15 This means that in order to understand them,
we need interpretation.16 And what applies to every interpretation,
applies to the interpretation of biblical texts as well. If we consider
11

Cf. Paul Ricoeur: To narrate is already to explain, Time and Narrative, Vol. 1 (Ox-

12

ford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), 178.

Although the lack o f presuppositions is not possible with regard to the understanding o f any subject-matter, it is obligatory with regard to the expected results o f inves-

13
14

tigation.
It could be shown that it applies even to the way in which we ask the questions.
... Every interpretation necessarily goes in circle (R. Bultmann, Glauben und Verstehen. Gesammelte Aufstze, Bd. 2, J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] [Tbingen 19582],

15
16

2 1 1-35 ).
See Hans Waldenfels, Kontextuelle Fundamentaltheologie (Paderborn-MunichVienna-Zurich:Ferdinand Schning, 19882), I, 3, 1.
By interpretation here is meant the fundamental difficulties o f interpretation,
not some individual misunderstandings (see Karl Lehmann, article Hermeneutics in: Encyclopedia o f Theology, A Concise Sacramentum M undi [ed. Karl Rahner]
[Burns & Oates, 19813], 6 1 1 -1 5 , at 611.

Can Orthodox Theology Be Contextual

403

language as a universal hermeneutical medium,17 we should start

from the biblical text. But here lies the first trapunderstanding
the (biblical) text as a source from which we should reconstruct
the picture of some past time.18 O f course, a text can serve this
purpose among others, but is that what we (as theologians) want
to grasp? I would say not. Similarly, if we do not read a (biblical)
text as a testimony to what it testifies, but as a testimony to the
time and culture from which it testifies, by that kind of approach
we show that what interests us is not the content of the testimony
but the testifier.19 However, the intention of the biblical writer was
not primarily to testify about his time and culture, but to convey
some important truths (which are to be analyzed by an approach
different from that when we are interested primarily in the sociocultural context).20
The next problem we meet in the hermeneutical process of
understanding the text is the relationship between context and truth.
In order to grasp biblical truth, it is desirable to understand the
cultural circumstances (i.e., the context) in which it is settled. This
is one thing. It is another thing entirely to claim that this truth is
so tied with that culture that it is culturally dependent.21 What,
17

The universal medium o f such hermeneutics as the basic movement o f finitehistorical existence in general is language. For language conveys, conceals and reveals
a whole understanding o f the world and other unobtrusive anticipations and conditions which affect the understanding. Its structure, which is not independent o f ethical and political action and public life, can convey to a certain extent phenomena like
power and social interests which seemingly lie outside the scope o f speech. Hence,
formally, language can provide the truly universal aspect o f a hermeneutics (Karl
Lehmann, op.cit., 614).
18 Compare Rudolf Bultmann, who ascribes this attitude to so-called historicism, op.
cit.
19 Compare the difference which made Fritz Blttner, talking about works o f art, between intentio recta and intentio obliqua in his paper, Das Griechenbild J. J.
Winkelmanns in Antike und Abendland, Heft I (1944): 121-32.
20 Historical sensitivity must not be used as a device to block philosophical analysis
(Brian Hebblethwaite, Philosophical Theology and Christian Doctrine [London:
Blackwell, 2005], 6).
21 An (extreme?) example o f this viewpoint is the insistence o f the Filipina theologian
Estela Padilla to write her papers exclusively in Tagalog (an Austronesian language
spoken in the Philippines, with the consequence that only Filipinos can read her),

404

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

then, about other cultures and their truths? If every culture had
its own truth, then truth would not exist at all.22Therefore, in trying
to interpret some biblical truths, we should never take culture as a
norm, much less as the ultimate criterion of truth. We should notice
that among the so-called context theologians there is a tendency
to hypostatize culture. However, the truths o f divine revelations
cannot be judged by the criteria of culture, so, it is important in
theology to avoid what one might call a fundamentalism of
culture,23 or an even more subtle form o f same attitude, a cultural
foundationalism.24 Furthermore, culture can sometimes contribute
to the understanding of some revealed truths, but more often than
not it can prevent it. In such cases, the understanding of culture
would not help in the understanding of the biblical message.25Yet the
understanding (and living) of the biblical message can contribute to

22

23

24
25

because (supposedly) no other language can capture and convey what she wants to
say. So, one o f the main principles o f contextual theology-communication with different cultures-cannot be realized just because o f respect for its other main principle,
being culturally determined.
There is a clear danger in the emphasis on the contextual, o f Christian theology
committing itself to a process o f fragmentation, resulting in a multiplicity o f peculiar
theologies unable to communicate with each other, and each tending to claim the
absoluteness o f the significance o f its contextual and cultural setting over all others (Keith Clements, Theology Now, in Companion Encyclopedia o f Theology, ed.
Peter Byrne & Leslie Houlden [London and New York: Routledge, 1995], 2 7 2-90 ,
at 287). Cf. also: How D o We Preserve the Unity o f Faith from a Diversity o f Perspectives?, J. M. Soskice, The Truth Looks Different from Here, in Christ and
Context, The Confrontation between Gospel and Culture, eds. H. D. Regan & A. J.
Torrance with A. W ood (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993), 51.
In the words o f Alan J. Torrance, this exists where the demands o f culture, defined in
terms o f its own prior selfunderstanding, are accepted uncritically as defining theological conclusions, Introduction in Christ and Context, 2.
This exists where it is believed (explicitly or implicitly) that culture defines the neeessary form o f theological questioning, A. J. Torrance, ibid.
By making our own cultural particularity primary, we make it our God; and by
so doing we reduce the Gospel o f Christ to just another, subordinate world-view,
Sue Patterson, Response to J. M. Soskice, in Christ and Context, 72. And Veronica
Brady rightly observes that the tendency to turn theology into a branch o f anthropology or ethnology is a permanent problem for all theology, o f course, but it is especially so for contextual theology, Response to E. Moltmann-Wendel, in Christ and
Context, 125.

Can Orthodox Theology Be Contextual

405

the creative reordering of (never innocent) cultural contextuality.

What matters for us as Christians is not just an understanding of
context, but primarily the transformation o f that context by Christ.16
To reach the original (i.e., biblical) message we should first
penetrate through the horizon of our own prejudices, questions,
social framework, psychological complexes, intellectual limitations,
and many other obstacles. We can achieve this not by eliminating
them, for that is not (always) possible, but by being aware of them
(which can help us to differentiate, rather than separate, them from
the intended meaning we want to grasp). In that case they play a
role similar to Kant s transcendental forms (with the exception that
they are different from person to person and therefore not a priori).
Second, we should penetrate the intention, comprehension,
language, and other elements of the writer s person. And third, we
should overcome the obstacles posed by the socio-cultural horizon
of the writer, that is, his context. All this is somehow present in
his writings, and it should also be present in our minds in order to
understand his messagefrom which, on the other hand, it should
be absent (because it is not about context but about the meaning of
the text). In other words, the Christian message is in space and time,
but it is not about space and time.
Therefore, what we actually have in practice is not a single
context, but a kind of gradualness of different contexts, and we
should be careful not to consider any of them as innocent, because
in the process of our understanding of the original message, they
could even behave as a kind of principalities and powers of this
world. Recognizing that there is no such thing as pure or context26

In the words o f Douglas Campbell, Life in Christ cannot but be superior to the
most cherished features o f our old life and context. Certainly our cultural identity
will not be obliterated: differences will remain. But the ground o f our existence w ill
no longer be cultural, or any aspect o f culture. We are grounded instead in the person
o f Christ, through the Spirit. In short, we now have the same ground as any other believer, irrespective o f context, while our various contexts are constantly beingjudged and
transformed by that ground' (italics V.P.); and moreover a recognition o f contextual
differences as fundamental would amount to a negation o f the work o f Christ and
exalt culture over the Cross, Response to J. W. de Gruchy, in Christ and Context,
174-75.

406

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

less theology,27 we should also recognize that the relation between

context and, for instance, Christology should be such that the
theological order or pressure of interpretation and revision should
be from Christ to our context, rather than from our Context to
Christ.28An additional reason for this is the fact that context is not
actually (as it is usually understood) something given, like a thing.
Rather, it is our (right or wrong) interpretation of the circumstances
in which we live.29 In a way, we are in a constant process of (both
mental and real) reordering of our contextuality. In other words,
cultures are not fixed entities, but are dynamic, always in the process
of change. Moreover, our contextuality is (naturally, biologically,
socially, culturally) contingent. On the other hand, what we, in
theology, try to grasp, is not.

Theological Context
The main question we have to answer is: what is the proper context
for theological reflection? The answer to this question will show what
kind of theology we are talking about. Under the influence of the
theologies from the so-called Third World, traditional, European
theology is held to be too scientific or elite, and functioning only
in the ivory tower as a kind of Glasperlenspiel, having nothing or
little in common with the real needs of ordinary people. To their
mind, theology should be context-dependent, which usually means
that it should be a religious reflection on existing living conditions
27

28
29

And not only theology but also Christianity that was pre-existent to culture and
history, or a culturally divested, a culturally naked Christianity does not exist, Johann B. Metz, The O n e World: A Challenge to Western Christianity, in Christ
and Context, 210.
Allan J. Torrance, Response to Jrgen Moltmann, in Christ and Context, 194.
Context is a mental, if not also a cultural, construct, one which serves to tidy up the
often confusing mixture o f situations in which we find ourselves, Daniel W. Hardy,
The Spirit o f God in Creation and Reconciliation, in Christ and Context, 237. Cf.
also Context does not indicate that which surrounds us, as if that were distinct
from us, as if it were an envelope in which we are contained. Nor ... are contexts
clearly distinct or disjoined from each other. That is true both conceptually and actually (italics V.P.), ibid. Compare: no context really exists in isolation, Douglas
Campbell, op. cit., 166. n. 20.

Can Orthodox Theology Be Contextual

407

and social circumstances or events. Only then would theology

be realistic, for only in that way could it be helpful to believers
(performing inverse influence on that society and culture which
bore it).
Contrary to the viewpoint portrayed,30 I would argue that the
proper theologicalcontext isphilosophy?1Accordingto this, contextual
theology (not just reflection from the religious point of view)
would be one that is conscious of its philosophical presuppositions.
Every theology has philosophical presuppositions, but those that
are conscious of them we can call contextual (if somebody thinks
that this name carries some advantages). This is not to affirm that
contextual theology has only philosophical and no other (social,
cultural, etc.) presuppositions. Nevertheless, the presuppositions of
theology are first and foremost philosophical. That could be shown
in the cases of Triadology, Christology, the theology of the person
or creation, iconology, and every other theology?1
It would not be inappropriate to ask the following: If in Christ
there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither free nor slave, why should
their theologies be different once they became Christians? That their
Weltanschauungs were different before their entrance to Church
is more than obvious. But after that, when they have all become
members of the same body of Christ, and when they have all
obtained the same mind of Christ, why would their theologies be
culture- or race- or social status-dependent ?33 Contextual theology
30

31
32
33

I do not want to deny that most o f what contextual theology is doing is useful for
understanding the relationship between Church and society, religion and culture,
etc. It could also be useful for the self-understanding o f the Church and her place in
concrete historical circumstances. More than this, it could be useful for understanding and meeting the daily needs o f Church members. But, however useful, the question remains: is that really theology?
O f course, not as some particular philosophical system, but asphilosophical rationality.
That can be shown even in the case o f ethics, apologetics, Christian anthropology,
and all other theological disciplines.
... in Jesus Christ God has set us free from the bondage o f closed, static cultures, and
opened up the possibility for the birth o f the new in which Jew and Gentile, slave
and free, men and women can be united in one body,J. W. de Gruchy in Christ and
Context, 141. Cf. also about Christs shocking abolition o f the age-old distinction
between Jew and Gentile, and hence ... abolition o f any contextual barrier within

408

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

liberated us from our European self-centeredness. In my opinion,

that is its greatest achievement. But we need a further step, which is
the liberation of theology from the shackles of contextualization
for this would, in fact, be its liberation from worldliness and its
reorientation to its proper object, the transcendent yet immanent
God, who is the same yesterday, today and forever.34 In other words,
what we need is not reading the Gospel in light of its cultural
context, but reading (and moreover transforming) the cultural
context in the light of the Gospel.
Let me make a (rather rough) comparison. If we want theology
to be a science (and I would like it to be at least scientific35), then
can we ask whether mathematics, physics, and other sciences are
understood contextually? Is geometry contextually Greek, so
that in Australia, for the understanding of supposedly Australian
geometry, an awareness of the socio-cultural circumstances would
be necessary? O f course not!36 And the right objection to this
comparison would not be that geometry is a natural science, while
theology is not, because they are compared here not with regard to
their being science (geometry being axiomatic, and theology not,
etc.), but with regard to their dependence on context. There is no
Greek, Australian, or Serbian geometry. There is only geometry.
The same applies to theology. By the providential will of the

34

35

36

the people o f God, whether based on race or culture, Douglas Campbell, Response
to John W. de Gruchy, Christian Witness and the Transformation o f Culture in a
Society in Transition, in Christ and Context, 170.
A. J. Torrance reminds us that in the opening paragraphs o f what are now published
as Bonhoeffer s lectures on Christology it is argued (among other things) that if the
Logos is to be taken seriously as the Word o f God to humankind, then this Word stands
over against our systems o f thought and prior, (often subliminally, self-oriented and
self-interested) cultural agendas and context-conditioned direction o f thought. The
Word serves, rather, to liberate and to reorientate our world-view, to bring us to new,
more inclusive and often more radical ways o f interpreting and reinterpreting the world
around us, Introduction in Christ and Context, 5 -6 (italics V.R).
Scientific can mean many things, and I do not want to enter the whole range o f its
meanings. Nevertheless, it has to imply at least the obedience to the basic laws o f form al
logic. O f course, it is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for doing science.
A contextual theologian could observe, for example, that hungry people do not care
for geometry. This, o f course, is true, but it is also trivial.

Can Orthodox Theology Be Contextual

409

omniscient God, and not owing (primarily) to social circumstances,

mathematics (as a theoretical science) appeared in Greece, and from
there spread across the world. The same happened with philosophy.
There is nothing sociologically, or psychologically, or historically
Greek in Greek mathematics or rationality in general. I believe
that it is impossible to show that ancient Greek mathematics,
philosophy, or any other theoretically rational discipline appeared as
a socially desirable product. Since they contributed nothing to the
practical needs of the members of society, they were not favored or
supported by society. As a rule, they developed in spite of society. So,
taken in itself, and seen from a providential point of view, rationality37
should be understood as Gods gift to humankind, and owing to Gods
providence it was developed in Ancient Greece exactly at that time, in
order to be the proper context for the theology that would come after
it and explain the revealed truths. Therefore, Christian theology from
the beginning had philosophical rationality as its natural context;
and to my mind this is the same today, and always will be.

The Case o f Orthodox Theology

Concerning the theme in the title of this paper, the question is posed:
What is the context of Orthodox theology?38 Generally speaking,
in the first centuries it was Roman society, in the next millennium it
was the Byzantine empire, for the next half a millennium it was the
Turkish empire, and in the last two centuries it has been the ethnic
state. In every one of these historical epochs there was a different
social, economic, cultural and every other framework in which the
Church lived her life and in which theologians wrote their papers.
Nobody can deny that knowing about all these circumstances
37
38

It is always useful to remind ourselves that while Rationalism is a kind o f (philosophical) ideology, rationality is God s gift to humanity, making us what we are.
We have to ask also what is the context o f Orthodox theology today And the answer
will not be easy, even if we take for granted that context means cultural surrounding,
because today we have Orthodox theology in very different cultural settings, and on
every continent. So, if every cultural context in today s poly-contextual world is decisive
in making theology, one could ask why all these culture-dependent theologies would
be called Orthodox? Or, conversely, if they are Orthodox independently o f cultural
context, than what happened with the basic principles o f contextual theology?

410

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

contributes to understanding their lives and works. Nevertheless we

still may ask: Are these historical settings to be considered as their
theological context? We could rightly also ask: Which of all the
possible economic, social, racial, or any other elements in their lives,
or perhaps several of them taken together, decisively contributed to
their teaching that God, while being three persons, still remains only
one God? O f course, we could not answer. This is obvious, because
the proper settingfor theological investigation is not to befound in the
sociocultural\ but in the philosophical context.
We can approach the problem from another perspective, as
well. The essence of revelation is one thing. The time- and space
conditioned forms of expression of that revelation are quite another.
Although we should not separate these things, we may differentiate
them. The same applies to theology. It goes without saying that
revelation must take some form. But that context-specific form must
reveal, not hide, what is intended to be revealed. Otherwise God
could not find his way to us (which, taking that we have to do with
God, is unimaginable). The difference between proper theology
and contextual theology (let us make that difference) could be
illuminated by the following example. We could say with the
Evangelist that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn
1:14), although the knowledge of the socio-cultural context enables
us to say with contextual theologians that the Word became aJewish
rabbi and dwelt in the first century Judea. It is not that the second
statement is untrue. It is true, but it is not a theological statement.
The proper theological statement is the first onethat the Word
(= God) became human. Surely, it is preferable to know what it
means to be rabbi, what the right meaning of Jewish is, where
Judea is, and even what the first century is, because even this
(as anything else) is not self-evident. But even if we manage to gain
knowledge o f all o f these contingent circumstances, it would be of
little help in understanding why it is necessary for our salvation that
this man be the God-man who has two inseparable and yet unmixed
natures.39 In order to understand this, it is necessary that one
39

I said that it would be o f little help because I also claim that Christian theology

Can Orthodox Theology Be Contextual

411

undertake a very subtle analysis of the implications o f the following

three hypotheses: that he is only God, that he is only man, and that
he is simultaneously God and man. And for this, the socio-cultural
context of the theologians who undertake that analysis would be
of no use. In other words, in theological investigations we should
study problems, not periods.40
A careful analysis of many other examples from the glorious
past of the Church shows that theological reflection is in fact the
critical approach to the problem. For example, the Church rejected
Apollinarianism because of its incoherent account o f Christs
humanity, which means that to understand why she rejected it is to
understand that incoherence which it implied, not to understand the
socio-cultural conditions ofthat time (which eventually contributed
to its occurrence). Likewise, the Church rejected Nestorianism
because of its incoherent account of Christ s identity, which means
that to understand why she rejected it is, again, to understand that
incoherence which it implied, and not to understand the context in
which it happened.41 Or else, to understand why it is necessary to
affirm a plurality of persons in God, it is necessary to understand
why the concept of love entails more than one person, not to be
conscious of the historical conditionality of the theologian who
advocate this;42 that is, it is necessary to understand reasons and
arguments, not society and culture (although there is no harm of
knowing these also). In the same way, the understanding of the
ontological implications of the doctrines of the Incarnation and the
Trinity is not context-dependent. Generally speaking, understanding
the philosophico-theological arguments and implications is not
context-dependent43 (except in the sense of the logico-philosophical
40

41
42

43

springs not solely from a social context (Keith Clements, op. cit., 286).
This is the wise advice o f Lord Acton (though he did not offer it regarding theology),
quoted in R. G. Collingwoods Autobiography (London: Oxford University Press,
19675), 130.
Cf. Brian Hebblethwaite, op. cit., 62.
E.g., Richard o f St. Victor, who claimed that supreme love must include not only
dilection (love for another) but also condilection (mutual love for a third), and
this entails a Trinity o f persons in the divine (i.e., perfect) being.
Although the understanding o f their appearance at some particular historical time

412

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

contextywhich, o f course, is not the sense which context theologians

give to the term).
Now we can return to Orthodox theology, and try to answer
the question in the title of this essay. The anti-intellectualism of
contemporary Orthodox theologians44is hardly in harmony with the
emphatic endeavor of the greatest theologians of the first centuries
of the Church to save the human intellect, so as not to present
the Christian faith to the world in which they lived as irrational
and in conflict with the human mind. It is equally opposed to the
warning made by Florovsky in our own time that the example of
the holy Fathers encourages a speculative confession of faith.45
In a speculative confession of faith, the context undoubtedly
cannot be social, but must be philosophical. So, on the one hand,
we may freely admit the credo of contextual theology, that the
knowledge of the social, cultural, and similar factors contributes to
the understanding of the Christian message. That is why we should
encourage the research of that kind of context; and, concerning
this, Orthodox theology can and should be contextual. We cannot,
however, call this kind of investigation theology in the strict sense.46
On the other hand, the knowledge of philosophy is substantially
the knowledge of the theological context, of the medium through
which theology arises, or the atmosphere in which theology moves.
Nevertheless, that kind of knowledge cannot guarantee by itself
that any theological knowledge will appear; but if it happened,
it would be out of fertile philosophical soil (and, it goes without
saying, never without divine grace). Concerning/?^ (for contextual
44

45

46

and space eventually is.

See Aristotle Papanikolaou, Reasonable Faith and a Trinitarian Logic: Faith and
Reason in Eastern Orthodox Theology, in Restoring Faith and Reason, eds. Laurence
Paul Hemming & Susan Frank Parsons (London: SCM Press, 2002), 2 37 -5 5 .
George Florovsky, Creature and Creaturehood, in The Collected Works o f Georges
Florovsky, Vol. Ill: Creation and Redemption (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing
Company, 1976), 4 3 -7 8 , at 62.
If we believe that it is useful to have a Social Doctrine o f Orthodox Church, we
can make it (following the example o f the Roman or Russian Church), but a social
doctrine, although pervaded as it might be with biblical truths, is still not proper
theology.

Can Orthodox Theology Be Contextual

413

theology very unusual) meaning of context, we may conclude

that Orthodox theology once was contextual, and to my mind it
could and must be such again. However, the present situation in
Orthodox theology with respect to that kind of contextualism is
not very promising.47
In summary, Orthodox theology can and should be contextual
in both senses of the word. In the usual sense where context means
the socio-cultural conditions of life and work, it can learn from (or be
reminded by) contemporary context theology that the knowledge
of the variety of these elements can substantially contribute to the
understanding of the Christian message. In the second, narrower,
and unusual sense, where context means philosophical rationality,
Orthodox theology can learn from its own past (or from some
contemporary non-Orthodox, or from lonely Orthodox examples)
that the knowledge of philosophy is indispensable for the theological
enterprise. And if we cannot (and should not) divide these two
meanings of the word context (taking for granted that, given the
gradualness of contextuality, philosophy as well has the context in
the first sense), we can (and should) differentiate them. In that case,
we can call the theology conditioned by the socio-cultural context
theology in a broader sense, and the theology conditioned by the
philosophical rationality we can call theology proper. It could be
shown that that which is theological in contextual theologies, and
which may also be found in these theologies in the broader sense
(and it is the proper theological element in them), is not dependent
on context in the first, but only on context in the second sense.

47

To mention here only one example o f the Orthodox (and not only the Orthodox)
going astray: the claim that apart from the laws o f formal logic, and indeed in contradistinction with them, there are some other laws o f G ods logic inaccessible to human intellect. Against that kind o f mysticism with closed eyes, I would recommend
one with eyes open, for which at least the logical law o f non-contradiction remains
essential to anything intelligible.

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.