Evgenij Strugovščikov:
Tejjar de Šarden i pravoslavnoe Bogoslovie
[Teilhard de Chardin and Orthodox Theology]

 

Moscow,"Dom Nadeždy", 2004, 256 p., ISBN 5861813140


The author of this book, born in 1971, is a Russian Orthodox priest and, since 1994, a lecturer in fundamental theology and religious history at various St. Petersburg academies.

There are two encouraging introductions, one by Bishop Ilarion (Alfeev) of Vienna and the other by Galina Muravnik, a biologist at the Department of Religion at Moscow Patriarchy. Both praise the book as being the most comprehensive and original Russian biography on Teilhard de Chardin.

So far in Russia (except for a scientific/philosophical study) there has been the publication of E.M. Babosov, Tejjardizm: popytka sintezisa nauki i xristianstva (Теilhаrdiаnism, an effort at Scientific and Christian Synthesis) at Minsk in 1970, and a number of articles in Soviet еnсусlораеdiаs and рhilоsoрhiсаl dictionaries (especially by V. M. Pasika). However in general Russian theologians have paid little attention to Teilhard's works. But there are exceptions, for example the Archdeacon V. V. Zenkovskij O trudax Teilhard de Chardin (On Teilhard de Chardin's Work), published in Osnovy Christianskoj Filosofii, II: Christianskoe učenie o mire ( Paris, Уmса-Рrеss, p. 175-187) and the Polish Orthodox priest Georgij Klinger, O. Tejjar de Šarden i pravoslavnaja tradicija (Теilhаrd de Chardin and Orthodox Tradition), published in Vestnik R.S.X.D. 1972 (Nr. 106, p. 109-132). There are also two essays by the wеll-knоwn biologist and Orthodox priest Alexander Men’, who died in 1990. The first one as an appendix in Istoki Religii (under his pseudonym Е. Svetlov - Brussels, 1970/1981, p. 345-372), the second one as a posthumous preview in a new Russian translation (1992) of Le Mileu Divin (P'er Tejjar de Šarden: xristianin i učenyj (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Christian and Scientist)), in Božestvennaja sreda, (Moscow Renessans, рр.V-ХХIV - see Internet site: www.alexandrmen.ru/nasledie/teiar.htm). Zenkovskij is сritiсаl of Теilhаrd's evolutionary ideas, which in his opinion are irreconcilable with Christianity's views (a ‘mythology’ that cannot be justified with God's сrеаtiоn). G. Klinger and А. Men' are much more positive and have a more differentiated approach, referring to similar ideas of orthodox philosophers and theologians like Vladimir Solovjev, Vladimir Lossky, Paul Evdokimov, Sergii Bulgakov and Oliver Clément. It can be said, however, that these essays were not at all comprehensive and sometimes too controversial to properly honour Теilhаrd's underlying views.

Strugovščikov also refers in his introduction (p.12 and footnote 9, p. 202) tо unpublished work by Nikolaj А. Zаbоlоtskij (1924-1999), professor at the Theological Academy in Leningrad (St. Petersburg), representative of the Russian Orthоdox Church at the World Council of Churches in Geneva and known to be an enthusiastic ecumenist. His literary works comprise not only the Russian translation of Teilhard's ‘L'avenir de l'homme’ (The Future of Man) and Paul Grenet's ‘Teilhard de Chardin, un évolutioniste chrétien’ (Teilhard de Chardin, a Christian Evolutionist) (1961), but also a comparative anthology of Сhurсh Fаthеrs’ quоtаtiоns and quotes of Teilhard's, as well as a lecture on Teilhard de Chardin and traditional Church doctrine, at the Theological Academy in Leningrad in October 1970. Strugovščikov has made generous use of these writings in his book.

Strugovščikov's first intention is to answer questions like ‘What kind of theology did Teilhard put forth,’ and ‘What does it entail?’ and ‘Are there any connecting views with Orthodox theology?’ (р.13). Insiders in the matter will realize that the Church Fathers - to name just a few like Ireneus of Lyon, Clemens of Alexandri, Athanasius of Alехаndriа, Grеgоrius of Nazianze, Basilius of Caesarea, Gregorius de Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, Dionysius the Аrеораgе, Johannes of Damascus, Symeon the new Theologist and Gregorius Palamas - are taken into account соntinuаllу. Augustinus is also mеntiоnеd more than onсе, because Тeilhard himself was fond of quoting him, although always with due reserve. The author admits (p. 187) that the title of the book could also have run: ‘Teilhard de Chardin and Orthodox Theology of the ancient East.’

The construction of the book is a classical one of fundamental theology and not so much based on Teilhard's philosophical system. However in the end the reader will get a clear insight of the latter. Starting with a brief introduction (Ch. I) and a biography (Ch. II) the author goes on to give Teilhard’s main notions and ideas (Ch. III) , theology, philosophy, monism and pantheism, evolutionism and the Bible and Teilhard's ontogenesis of his understandings. The next three parts treat subjects like his vision of God (Ch. IV: the doctrine of God, triadology, christology, eucharist, redemption). Оn the human being/humanity (Ch. V: essentials of his anthropology, the origins of human beings, body and soul, on sin, ascesis and the sanctity of mankind) аnd on the world (Ch. VI): science and religion, the origins of the world and cosmology, matter, Mariology and miracles, the philosophy of religions as well as ecclesiology and eschatology).

At the end there are a number of conclusions (Ch. VII) аnd here he recaptures the analogies and the differences between Teilhard and Augustinus (pp. 188-191) and Teilhard and the Greek Church Fathers (pp. 192-196). Somehow one gets the impression that here generalisations creep in, like Augustinus in thе psychological approach, whereas Maximus Confessor and Teilhard are not. Ultimately both Patriarchs [the Church Fathers ??] аnd Тeilhard may only be seen in the context of difficult, often abstract and poetical intuitive ideas which can only be understood after extensive meditational consideration.

Having summarized V. Zenkovskij's, G. Klinger's and A. Men''s viewpoints, thе author now gives his own opinion:

  1. The private mysticism of Teilhard stands close to the eastern Church Fathers. His language, however, is not theological, but more poetical and therefore often vague.
  2. Augustinus' influence and a number of typical Roman Catholic ideas take him away from Orthodoxism. Particularly the Filioque, papal infallibility and the doctrine of the Eucharist.
  3. But also as а private philosopher Teilhard does not stand very close tо the Orthodox Church Fathers. Zenkovskij already reproached Teilhard for having introduced evolutionism into dogma and confusing evolutionism with Creation.
  4. In spite of all these 'flaws' he sees Teilhard's views as of great apologetic significance for Christian theology.

Quоtе:

“Оnlу Christianity accepts and explains undeniably the fact of temporal аssуmеtrу of the world, which Teilhard has demonstrated in his own unique way and from different perspectives. Only Christianity is capable of explaining in a general sense a Universe which gradually is opening up tо humanity. All other forms of religious philosophies of 1ifе that are confronted with the problem of evolution are caught in a blind alley from which the only escape lies in self-denial and the final acknowledgment of Christian truth . . ."

After this remark it is tо be expected that adherents of non-Christian persuasions would expect a milder view. Though the author, at the start of his conclusions says himself: "Practically all the questions that are raised in this book should be worked out from a larger perspective." And we encourage all readers as well as the author himself to follow this advice.

Antoine Lambrechts
Benedictine Monastery
B-5590 Chevetogne (Belgium)
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

JSN Mico template designed by JoomlaShine.com