The Mother of God in the Theology of Sergius Bulgakov: The Soul of the World 9781472451651, 9781315555454

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Dedication
Contents
List of abbreviations
Introduction
1 The formative events
2 Bulgakov’s method and sources
3 Russian Mariology and Bulgakov
4 Theological anthropology and Mary
5 Bulgakov’s Mariology
6 Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology
Conclusion
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

The Mother of God in the Theology of Sergius Bulgakov

This book explores the Mariology of one of the most unique and fascinating thinkers in the Russian Orthodox tradition, Father Sergius Bulgakov. Bulgakov develops the Russian sophianic mariological tradition initiated by Vladimir Solo’ev and argues that Mary is the “soul of the world” or the pneumatological hypostasis. Mary is the first and greatest disciple to be adopted by the Holy Spirit. By situating Mary within the life and mission of the Holy Spirit, Bulgakov maintains the respect and veneration that Orthodox Christians have for Mary, but also places Mary squarely within the community of disciples. Mary is a model disciple, who reveals that the goal of the spiritual life, spiritual motherhood. In addition, this text reveals the relevance and importance of Bulgakov’s contribution to the contemporary discussion about the role of Mary in the history of salvation. Walter Nunzio Sisto is an assistant professor of Religious Studies at D’Youville College. His research interest is the application of Sergius Bulgakov’s theology to contemporary issues. To this end he has published a variety of articles on Sergius Bulgakov’s Sophiology in journals such as Logos, Marian Studies, and Irish Theological Quarterly. He has also published the book, Death & the World Religions (Kendall Hunt, 2015) that was inspired by Bulgakov’s Sophiology of death.

The Mother of God in the Theology of Sergius Bulgakov The Soul of the World

Walter Nunzio Sisto

First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Walter Nunzio Sisto The right of Walter Nunzio Sisto to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Sisto, Walter Nunzio, author. Title: The Mother of God in the theology of Sergius Bulgakov : the soul of the world / Walter Nunzio Sisto. Description: New York : Routledge, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017034765 | ISBN 9781472451651 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781315555454 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Bulgakov, Sergiĭ, 1871–1944. | Mary, Blessed Virgin, Saint—Theology. | Orthodox Eastern Church—Doctrines. | Theological anthropology—Orthodox Eastern Church. | God—Wisdom. Classification: LCC B4238.B84 S57 2018 | DDC 232.91092—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017034765 ISBN: 978-1-472-45165-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-55545-4 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC

For my Mother, thank you for your support, inspiration, and example.

Contents

List of abbreviations

ix

Introduction

1

1

The formative events

9

2

Bulgakov’s method and sources

27

3

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

53

4

Theological anthropology and Mary

75

5

Bulgakov’s Mariology

113

6

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

191

Conclusion

225

Bibliography Index

229 241

Abbreviations

BB

BL

FB

JL

LG

Sophia

The Comforter

UF

PGT

Sergius Bulgakov, The Burning Bush: On the Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God. Translated by Thomas Allan Smith. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009. Sergius Bulgakov, The Bride of the Lamb. Translated by Boris Jakim. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002. Sergius Bulgakov, The Friend of the Bridegroom: On the Orthodox Veneration of the Forerunner. Translated by Boris Jakim. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003. Sergius Bulgakov, Jacob’s Ladder: On Angels. Translated by Thomas Allan Smith. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010. Sergius Bulgakov, The Lamb of God. Translated by Boris Jakim. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008. Kindle e-book. Sergius Bulgakov, Sophia: The Wisdom of God – An Outline of Sophiology. Translated by Rev. Patrick Thomas. New York: Lindisfarne Press, 1993. Sergius Bulgakov, The Comforter. Translated by Boris Jakim. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004. Kindle e-book. Sergius Bulgakov, Unfading Light: Contemplations and Speculations. Edited and Translated by Thomas Allan Smith. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, In Press 2012. Florensky, Pavel. The Pillar and Ground of Truth. Translated by Boris Jakim. Princeton: Princeton University, 1997.

Introduction

There is little doubt that the academic investigation of Mary of Nazareth, the Theotokos, is undergoing somewhat of a renaissance. Mary, who has been a source of division between Christians, has become a source of unity as evidenced by the recent ecumenical statements such as The One Mediator: The Saints and Mary (Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue, 1990) and Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ (Anglican-Catholic Dialogue, 2005). Within the interreligious dialogue movement, although no joint statement between non-Christians and Christians exists on Mary, Mary continues to inspire Jewish-Catholic workshops in North America. Inspired by this dialogue, Catholic and Jewish scholars have sought to recover the Jewishness of Mary. Sr. Mary C. Athans’ In Quest of the Jewish Mary (2013) as well as Edward Kessler’s’ article “Mary-The Jewish Mother” and Avital Wohlmann’s article “Why the Silence Today Regarding Mary’s the Jewishness of Mary of Nazareth? A Jewish Woman Responds” are evidence of this inspiration. The Mother of Jesus has also received notable attention among Islamic scholars. Aliah Schleifer’s Mary the Blessed Virgin of Islam (2008) is an important contribution to this renaissance. Within the Christian tradition, Mary is not simply the subject of Roman Catholic theologians who identify as mariologists but has received increasing interest from other theological disciplines (i.e., Catholic feminist and liberation theologies). Outside the Catholic tradition, there have been various monographs on Mary published by Protestant theologians including Blessed One: Protestant Perspectives on Mary (2002) and Tim Perry’s Mary for Evangelicals. From the above overview, you may wonder what the Eastern Orthodox tradition has contributed to the academic, devotional, or ecumenical/interreligious dialogue on Mary? A cursory search in an Internet search engine or a theological library will yield few monographs or statements about the Orthodox perspective on the Mother of God (Theotokos). Although prominent Orthodox theologians are members of ecumenical groups like The Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mary has not received the same attention in bilateral and multilateral ecumenical movements involving the Orthodox traditions.1 Nevertheless, you need only to walk into an Orthodox Church or listen to the divine liturgy to understand that love for

2

Introduction

the Theotokos permeates the sacred space and liturgical life of Orthodoxy.2 For example, immediately following the consecration of the Eucharistic bread and wine, during the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which is the liturgy used most frequently in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the congregation proclaims: It is truly right to bless you, Theotokos, ever blessed, most pure, and mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, without corruption you gave birth to God the Word. We magnify you, the true Theotokos. In no other Christian tradition is the Theotokos so closely linked with the Eucharistic celebration, which is the central event in the life of all Christian traditions that trace their origin to the twelve apostles. Even the position of Mary in the iconostasis, the various Marian icons, as well as the Marian feasts in Orthodoxy, provide a good reason to believe that a relationship to the Theotokos is a crucial element of Orthodox identity. Yet, the significant role that Mary plays in the official worship and life of the Eastern Orthodox Church is not commensurate with the amount of publications (popular or academic) about Mary. This is odd for a non-Orthodox Christian familiar with Catholic Mariology. In Orthodoxy, there is no theological discipline exclusive to the study of Mary. Orthodox theologians do not identify themselves as mariologists; moreover, there are no theological societies committed exclusively to the study of Mary among Orthodox theologians, such as the various mariological societies in Catholicism. Georges Florovsky, a renowned Orthodox theologian and father of the neo-patristic movement, argued that these omissions are intentional and they are a result of the love and veneration that the Orthodox Church has for Mary. Mary is integral to the life of the Orthodox Church and the saving mission of Jesus Christ; any attempt to extrapolate Mary from ecclesiology or Christology would do a disservice to her. Orthodoxy has a unique perspective of the Theotokos that is necessary to broaden the discussion of Mary that has been dominated by Western Christian traditions. This text is intended to provide a distinctive Orthodox contribution to this increasingly ecumenical and interreligious discussion about Mary, the Mother of God. As the title suggests, this book will examine the Mariology of one of the most prolific, undervalued, and controversial Orthodox writers, Sergius Bulgakov.3 With respect to his Mariology, Bulgakov, who did not agree with Florovsky’s interpretation of Mary, attempted to express with systematic clarity the role of the Mother of God in the liturgy, life, and thought of Orthodoxy. Bulgakov, who is well-known for his Sophiology that is for him the method by which he explicates God’s relationship to the world, Mary is a pillar and ground of this relationship, representing the best humankind has to offer God for the Incarnation and

Introduction

3

actualization of God’s saving work. She fully actualizes human freedom that makes not only the Incarnation possible but participates intimately in the salvation of the world through the economic activity of the third person of the Trinity. For these reasons, she is truly the “soul of the world.” Interestingly, despite a growing number of academic works on Sergius Bulgakov including the various translations of his major theological and philosophical works into English, French, German, Italian as well as new additions in Russian, with a few exceptions, no one has yet examined the role of Mary in Bulgakov’s thought in detail.4 Since Bulgakov’s death in 1944, there has only been one short study published on his Mariology, Divina Maternitas Mariae in Sergio Bulgakov (1953) by A. Legisia.5 Nearly sixty years since Legisia’s work,6 only a few studies have been published on this topic by Andrew Louth, Kallistos Ware, Robert Slesinski, Bernard Schultze, Walter N. Sisto, and Aidan Nichols. The lack of attention to Mary in Bulgakov’s thought is alarming given the importance of the Mother of God to Bulgakov. As Lev Zander, Bulgakov’s colleague and follower at St. Sergius Theological Institute in Paris, in his work Bog i Mir: mirosozertsanie ottsa Sergiia Bulgakova noted, Mary is “the alpha and the omega of his entire religious understanding and perception of the world.”7 Within his sophiological corpus, his reflections on Sophia begin and end with Mary: Mary is the subject of his first major theological reflection on Sophia, The Burning Bush (1926), as well as the subject of his final reflection on Sophia in his The Bride of the Lamb (1945).8 His reflections on Mary are not limited to these works, as she permeates his Sophiology. The centrality of Mary in his thought is an elaboration of the theological milieu of the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Russian Orthodox Church tradition that linked Mary to Sophia in liturgical worship and popular devotion. Consequently, Bulgakov’s Sophiology, which is his attempt to explain Russian Orthodox devotion to Sophia, is also an attempt to explain Russian Orthodox devotion to Mary.9 What makes Bulgakov’s presentation of Mary unique is that he theologizes what he experiences: the liturgy and his personal devotion to Mary are his inspiration. This is perhaps why Lev Zanders and others have described Bulgakov as a mystic. His personalist and mystical approach to theology are rooted in the mystery of the Incarnation: God who becomes incarnate is the God that invites us to meet, to love, and to partake of the beatitude that God has bestowed on the Theotokos. For Bulgakov, the Theotokos is not merely a religious symbol for the best humankind has to offer God but rather the person that establishes the means and ground in which our encounter with God in the person of Christ Jesus is possible and realized. For this reason, the Theotokos permeates his theological works and activities during his theological period (1925–1944). Bulgakov, in fact, was singlehandedly responsible for bringing Mary to the forefront of the multilateral ecumenical movement.10 He was insistent that the veneration of Mary

4

Introduction

“is the central, though hidden nerve of the whole movement towards reconciliation among the divided confessions.”11 Without a relationship with Mary that recognizes not only her unique role in salvation history but also loves her as Jesus Christ loves her, we unnecessarily limit our comprehension and encounter of God. To the consternation of his Protestant brothers and sisters, Bulgakov argued that Protestant theologies suffer from a “maimed Christology” that is a result of an undervaluation of Mary in salvation history. Mary is intimately related to the Incarnation and hypostatic union, and undervaluing her role in salvation history results in a heretical Christology that undervalues the humanity of Jesus Christ. Therefore, agreement and shared veneration of Mary is the only safeguard to an agreement in thought and expression on the most important dogma of our faith, the Incarnation. Without agreement about Mary’s role in the life of the Church, the ecumenical movement cannot succeed. Given the renewal of interest in Mary and Bulgakov’s Sophiology, my study is timely, as Bulgakov provides a Mariology from an Orthodox perspective, but one that is ecumenically sensitive and relevant. For Bulgakov, Mary is the pneumatophoric hypostasis: she is the Holy Spirit’s creaturely hypostatic vessel; through Mary, the Holy Spirit acts in the world. I will demonstrate that Bulgakov’s pneumatological interpretation of Mary not only allows him to retain the hyperdulia that the Orthodox Church gives to Mary but also places Mary squarely within the Church. Though he presents an idealized image of Mary, Mary is always connected to the human race and reveals the vocation of every Christian. Mary is not the Redeemer, but rather the first member of the redeemed community who completes “what is lacking in regards to Christ’s afflictions” (Col 1:24). Mary enhances as opposed to supplements or detracts from Christ’s redemptive work. To use the term proffered by the recent ecumenical statement Mary Grace and Hope by ARCIC, Bulgakov’s Mariology is an “anticipated eschatology.”12 Bulgakov writes, “[b]oth [the glorification and resurrection] are essentially anticipations of what is prepared for the humanity of the whole Christ in the risen life; both were bestowed in advance upon the Mother of God.”13 Mary is the perfect expression of human activity under the influence of grace. In heaven, Mary actualizes glorified human existence after the General Resurrection of the dead. As “the soul of the world” Mary is not only our advocate and intercessor before God but also she is intimately close to each person and inspires them to follow the Gospel. She is a model for the disciples of Christ to follow, for she reveals what discipleship entails both on earth and in heaven. Mary is a prophetess, who inspires us to challenge the status quo and act creatively, which for Bulgakov means to become a Spirit-bearer or divine mother, to unite with the Holy Spirit in its mission to give birth to Christ in our thoughts, words, and deeds. Given his gender essentialism and his feminine interpretation of the activity of the Holy Spirit, for Bulgakov, Mary reveals that discipleship involves the embrace of our feminine potential.

Introduction

5

My study of his Mariology that will be limited primarily to Bulgakov’s minor and major trilogy provides the context, central tenets of Bulgakov’s Mariology, and critical evaluation of his ideas written during his Paris or Theological period. It will be divided into six main chapters. Chapters 1 and 2 will present salient features of his biography and the intellectual and spiritual currents that, in my estimation, shaped his thinking about the Mother of God. To that end, Chapter 1 provides a biographical sketch of Bulgakov. Especially noteworthy are his participation in the Russian Religious Renaissance and the ensuing discussion about sexuality and his religious experience at Dresden. Chapter 2 will examine Bulgakov’s Sophiology and theological methodology. This chapter will also begin my discussion of his Mariology, as it will discuss the context of his Mariology, the methods he employs, and important liturgical and scriptures texts he uses. Chapter 3 will examine Russian mariologies that influenced Bulgakov, particularly the Mariology of the Russian sophiologists, Vladimir Solov’ev and Pavel Florensky. Chapter 4 examines Bulgakov’s anthropology and doctrines of sin and grace. It is a preliminary chapter that will provide the necessary background for comprehending many themes that will be discussed in Chapter 5. Close attention will be paid to his usage of the sexual binary in his elucidation of the image of God, his trinitarian understanding of humankind, and the role of the Holy Spirit in salvation history. This chapter will also introduce Mary’s role in the human race, her relationship to the Holy Spirit, and her sinlessness. Chapter 5 elucidates the tenets of his Mariology. This is the largest chapter of this text that will be divided into several subsections that discuss important themes in his thought, such as Bulgakov’s polemic with Catholic Mariology, Mary’s life on earth, Mary’s role in the afterlife, and Mary’s role in discipleship. Chapter 6 offers a critical evaluation of Bulgakov’s Mariology; specifically, the reception of his thought by the Russian émigré community in Paris and feminist theologians. I will examine the reception of his Mariology by Vladimir Lossky and Georges Florovsky, who represent the neo-patristic school, and Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, who represents the feminist school that has dominated Orthodox theology since Bulgakov’s death. To provide a thorough evaluation of his thought, I will also bring into the discussion John Maximovitch and Elizabeth Johnson, who are not members of the émigré community. Their ideas and methods will supplement the critiques made by the émigré theologians. The final chapter will conclude my study. My study will primarily examine Bulgakov’s six books on Sophiology, the minor trilogy, The Burning Bush (1926), The Friend of the Bridegroom (1927), Jacob’s Ladder (1929), and the major trilogy, The Lamb of God (1933), The Comforter (1936), The Bride of Lamb (1945). To aid my English readers, I have used the most recent English translations of Bulgakov’s works when available. My examination of Bulgakov’s Mariology will employ these three methods of analysis: biographical analysis, textual analysis, and feminist theory. The biographical analysis will be used in chapters

6

Introduction

one and three. This interpretive method is necessary because it will introduce Bulgakov and reveal the external motivations that influenced his Mariology. Textual analysis will be the main method I use in this book. Textual analysis will allow me to accurately portray Bulgakov’s teaching on Mary, since I will closely examine what he says about Mary, and I will address the pneumatological implications of these statements. The main texts I will analyze are his mariological work, The Burning Bush and his pneumatological work, The Comforter, and his eschatological work, The Bride of the Lamb. Given the importance of feminism in contemporary theology and the central role the sexual binary and his typology of women play in his Mariology, the feminist theory must be applied to Bulgakov’s thought to determine if his Mariology meets contemporary standards of theology and if his theology is relevant today. I will evaluate his thought primarily through the methods and criticisms proffered by Elizabeth Johnson in her book, Truly Our Sister: A Theology of Mary in the Communion of Saints.

Notes 1 Although the Orthodox churches have not participated in any dialogue on Mary herself, she has been addressed in joint ecumenical statements published by the Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue. (Cf. The International Commission for the Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue, The Dublin Agreed Statement, London: Anglican Communion Office, 1984.) With respect to the CatholicOrthodox ecumenical movement, no agreed statement has been produced on Mary. This is no doubt due to the fact that Orthodox and Catholic Christians both agree that Mary is not a major issue of disagreement. 2 For a good overview of the role of Mary in the liturgical life of the Orthodoxy see Virginia Kimball’s work, “Liturgical Illuminations: Discovering Received Tradition in the Eastern Orthros of Feasts of the Theotokos,” (Ph.D. diss., Dayton, OH: International Marian Research Institute, 2003). 3 Bulgakov remains a controversial theologian in the Orthodox tradition. His theology is not representative of mainstream Orthodoxy in North America and Europe. However, given the growing body of works on Bulgakov by Orthodox theology in the past two decades, there is good reason to believe that Bulgakov is undergoing a reassessment by Orthodox theologians. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware in his 2012 lecture “The Neo-Patristic Synthesis” argued that Orthodoxy in the future should synthesize Bulgakov’s insights with Florovsky’s NeoPatristic Synthesis. (Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, “Neo-Patristic Synthesis,” The Cambridge Orthodox Forum, May 1, 2012, www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ cambridge/the_neo_patristic_synthesis, accessed May 31, 2017.) Nevertheless, Bulgakov self-identified as an Orthodox theologian, and he remained in good standing with his local Orthodox bishop in Paris throughout his theological career. 4 Rowan Williams observed in 1999 in his book, Sergii Bulgakov: Towards a Russian Political Theology, that no secondary source has yet adequately treated Sergius Bulgakov’s Mariology. (Rowan Williams, “General Introduction” in Sergius Bulgakov: Towards a Russian Political Theology, Edited by Sergius N. Bulgakov, pp. 1–19, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), p. 19.) Since Williams made this observation, Bulgakov’s Mariology has received little attention from scholars. What has been published consists of a few articles and book chapters.

Introduction

7

5 In secondary literature on Bulgakov, this work is relatively unknown. In North America, there is one known copy of this book in existence. 6 Antonio Legisa, Divina Maternitas Mariae in Sergio Bulgakov, (Matriti: Pontificum Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1953). 7 Lev Zander, Bog i Mir, Vol. 2, (Paris: YMCA Press, 1948), p. 184 in Thomas Allan Smith, “Introduction” in The Burning Bush: On the Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God, Translated and Edited by Thomas Allan Smith, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), p. xiv. 8 Bulgakov’s The Bride of the Lamb was completed in 1939. However, it was not submitted for publication until 1942, and it was not published until 1945. The Second World War frustrated the publication process. For the most comprehensive chronology of Bulgakov’s publications, see Kliment Naumov, ed., Bibliographie Des Oeurves De Serge Boulgakov, (Paris: Instititut D’Études Slaves, 1984). 9 The link between Mary and Sophia is a notable departure from the earlier Greek tradition that linked Christ to Sophia. As Donald Fiene’s important study of Sophia in Slavic worship demonstrates, in Russia, the mariological interpretation of Sophia was widespread and authoritative. This shift can be traced to the cathedrals in Kiev and Novgorod that are dedicated to Sophia, but have Marian titular feasts. Kiev’s feast day is the Nativity of Mary on 8 September, and Novgorod’s feast day is the Dormition of Mary on 15 August. (Donald M. Fiene, “What Is the Appearance of Divine Sophia?” (Slavic Review 48 (1989): pp. 449–476), p. 452.) 10 After almost a decade of activism, Bulgakov was finally permitted by Faith and Order to speak about Mary during the second meeting at Edinburgh. 11 Sergius N. Bulgakov, “The Question of the Veneration of the Virgin Mary at the Edinburgh Conference,” (Sobornost 12 (1937): pp. 24–28), p. 28. See also Walter N. Sisto, “Making the New Evangelization Credible: Mary in the Ecumenical Movement,” (Marian Studies 64 (2013): pp. 110–131). 12 The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ, (Toronto: Novalis, 2005), p. 56. 13 Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 118.

1

The formative events

This chapter begins by briefly introducing Bulgakov and the movements, events, and experiences that were formative for his Mariology. After briefly examining the salient features of his biography relevant to this study that highlights the influence of Solov’ev on his thought, his Catholic hypnosis, and sophiological controversy, the chapter ends with an examination of his Zwinger gallery experiences and the fascination with sexuality in the Russian Religious Renaissance.

Background Sergius Bulgakov was born in Livny in the Orel province of Russia in 1871. His father Nikolai Bulgakov was a parish priest that primarily officiated at funeral services.1 Following in the levitical tradition of his family, which stretched back at least six generations,2 at the age of fourteen Bulgakov entered the seminary. Reflecting on his childhood, Bulgakov notes that his zeal for his vocation faded as he grew disenchanted with his faith tradition because his teachers were unable to answer his questions,3 and at the age of sixteen, he broke with Orthodoxy and enrolled in a secular gymnasium. During this thirteen-year hiatus from his ancestral faith, Bulgakov flirted with various ideologies, including nihilism, marxism, and idealism.4 Nevertheless, one constant theme in his early life was “to save his fatherland from imperial tyranny.”5 By the end of the nineteenth century, he not only established himself as a marxist but a prominent member of the intelligentsia of Russia, avoiding accusations of being a parvenu due to his lesser social standing.6 However, with the preparation of his dissertation from 1898 to 1900 that was intended to test the universal application of Marx’s theory of capitalist societies, he became disenchanted with Marx, discovering that Marx’s universal pretensions about capitalist societies based on the English economy were unfounded.7 His dissatisfaction with marxism8 led him to seek a particular Russian response to socio-political concerns of his time and his existential longing for truth.9 Bulgakov to embraced idealism, particularly the idealism of Vladimir Solov’ev, an influential philosopher and Slavophile during the late nineteenth century, and Slavophilism.10

10

The formative events

Nevertheless, before Bulgakov re-embraced his ancestral faith, as a religious philosopher, he believed that the road to reform lay in the cultivation of particularly Russian qualities (i.e., sobornost and stress on the subtleties of life).11 Sobornost refers to the spiritual communion of individuals living together, who sacrifice their own well-being for the well-being of their neighbor.12 The reform he sought that was imbued with the spirit of sobornost was to be found in Christian Socialism.13 Christian Socialism for Bulgakov was the technical means for realizing Christian love for a neighbor.14 However, after the failure of the Second Duma (March–June 1907),15 he came to the conclusion that his earlier ideas were mistaken, and differences in theory lead to differences in practice.16 This pragmatic realism, compounded by the death of his four-year-old son Ivan and mystical experience during the funeral service, prompted him to reread Solov’ev.17 In 1902, Bulgakov argued that Solov’ev represented the highest philosophical synthesis.18 However, by 1908, he engaged Solov’ev “with his entire being,” using Solov’ev as a scaffolding for his work as opposed to a providing a few guiding principles for engaging social action.19 Thus, Bulgakov no longer emphasized Solov’ev’s holism and religious worldview, but rather now Bulgakov focused on Solov’ev’s philosophy. Bulgakov continues the task set out by Solov’ev, to understand Godhumanhood (Bogochelovechestvo) or the integral relationship between God and humankind, namely what God’s relationship to humankind tells us about who God is as well as what humankind is.20 Evidence of Solov’ev’s influence on Bulgakov is nowhere more apparent than in Bulgakov’s first major work, The Philosophy of Economy [1911].21 Here Bulgakov applies Solov’ev’s insights to the field of economics, authoring a unique religious interpretation of economics.22 Bulgakov’s elaboration of Solov’ev’s ideas continues in Unfading Light [1917] that examines religious consciousness, negative theology, creation, Sophia, Mariology, anthropology, and theological aesthetics to name a few themes.23 Interestingly, this is the first text in which Bulgakov deals at length with patristic sources as opposed to German philosophers, and thus it is his first significant attempt at writing Orthodox theology. Many of the ideas Bulgakov propounds in his minor and major trilogies are evident in this text. Oddly, Unfading Light was Bulgakov’s final word on Sophia for nearly eight years. Between 1917 and 1925 Bulgakov does not publish on Sophia. This gap in his sophiological and mariological thought is attributed to the events surrounding the Bolshevik revolution and expulsion from Russia. Still, the period from 1918 to 1925 was crucial for his theological development. When he resumed publishing on Sophia, in a 1925 essay entitled “Ipostas’ i ipostasnost’,”24 his Sophiology, purged of erotic and gnostic tendencies, and it is much more rooted in the Orthodox tradition. At the beginning of this period of silence on Sophia, Bulgakov participated in the All-Russian Church Council of 1917: he was elected to serve on various commissions dealing with topics such as the debate over the name-worshippers,25 the implications of socialism for the Church, and the

The formative events

11

problem of bolshevism.26 However, his most significant contribution to the council was his role in the restoration of the Patriarchate. Bulgakov’s hope for a new Russia rested in a Reformed Church led by the Patriarch of Moscow. Unfortunately, the council ended abruptly, and with the rise of the Soviet State, the Church would experience nearly eighty years of persecution by the openly militant, atheistic state.27 In the aftermath of the Bolshevik revolution, Bulgakov was clandestinely ordained to the priesthood at the Church of the Mother of God, Joy of All Who Sorrow, where his good friend Pavel Florensky was a pastor.28 Afterward, he left Moscow to visit family in Crimea. Unfortunately, he was not permitted to return to Moscow by the Soviet state.29 The advancement of the Soviet state led to his emigration to Prague, where he lived for almost three years. His silence on Sophia between 1918 and 1925 corresponds with his flirtation with Catholicism. In Bulgakov’s From the Memories of the Heart, he recounts that his “Catholic hypnosis” lasted from 1918 to 1923.30 His hope, which he had nurtured for almost two decades, that the Russian Church would save the Russian people and help create a new and better Russian dissipated with the rise of the Soviet state.31 His despair was compounded by the lack of a viable structure for ecclesial authority in Russia.32 The restoration of the patriarchate in Moscow did not have the effect for which he hoped, and the weak patriarchate had doctrinal ramifications. Orthodoxy became a matter of personal interpretation whereby “l’Orthodoxie, c’est ma doctrine de l’orthodoxie.”33 In this context, Catholicism and the papal office offered Bulgakov a respite from the individualism and despair he experienced in Russian Orthodoxy. During this hiatus from Orthodoxy, Bulgakov immersed himself into Catholic theology and culture.34 This period of “hypnosis” is significant for this study because it is formative in so far as it provided Bulgakov with the wherewithal to engage Catholicism in an academic polemic throughout his theological period (1925–1944). Nevertheless, by late 1922, Bulgakov’s “hypnosis” begins to dissipate due to his personal struggles as well as his disgust with the underhanded methods of proselytism used by Catholics to convert Orthodox Christians. His religious experience at the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople where “St. Sophia was revealed to my mind as something absolute, self-evident and irrefutable” finalized his break with Catholicism. Bulgakov’s renewed love for Sophia coincides with his renewed love for his Orthodox faith. He concludes that Sophia and not the Pope could bring about reform and unity in Russia and the world, for “[w]isdom is for everyone; she is not national or local, but the universal Church: all people are called under her cupola.” The manifestation of the universal Church was now the Orthodox Church. Bulgakov experienced hypnosis, rejection of Catholicism, and residence in a Catholic country – in 1925 Bulgakov was invited by Metropolitan Evlogy to be a professor of dogmatics and Dean of St. Sergius Theological Institute, a new Orthodox seminary in Paris. His residence at St. Sergius begins his

12

The formative events

Parisian or theological period (1925–1944), which was his most productive period in terms of the amount of theological publications he produced. His sophiological works published after 1925 define Orthodoxy in contradistinction to Catholicism and are inculcated with polemical overtones. His early publications in Paris polemically engage the Catholic teachings on authority, Mary, and St. Joseph.35 Bulgakov criticizes Catholic authority in his essay St. Peter and St John (1926),36 Catholic Mariology in The Burning Bush (1926), and Catholic devotion to St. Joseph in The Friend of the Bridegroom (1927).37 These publications did not settle his polemic with Catholic theology. He engages Catholicism in polemics throughout his theological publications. His minor and major trilogy is no exception. Catholic theologians, primarily Thomas Aquinas and scholastic theologians, and Catholic doctrine (e.g., the Catholic understanding of nature, grace, the Filioque, and sin) are his interlocutors in these works. Bulgakov’s academic polemics with Catholic teaching did not detract from his commitment to ecumenism, as he participated in the AnglicanOrthodox ecumenical movement and was a founding member and a regular contributor to the Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, later known as Sobornost. Bulgakov was an important Orthodox ecumenist who participated in the first multilateral, international ecumenical meetings of the Faith and Order at Lausanne (1927) and Edinburgh (1937). His devotion to the Theotokos permeated his ecumenical activities, and at both meetings, Bulgakov made his controversial plea that unity could only be accomplished when Protestant churches embraced the Mother of God.38 Although he gained much acclaim in Paris for his holiness, ecumenical work, and Sophiology, his thought was not well-received around the Orthodox world. After the publication of his book, The Lamb of God, he was accused of theological error by the Metropolitan of Moscow, Sergius (Stragorodsky) in 1935, and asked to recant his position.39 The Karlovtsy Synod (i.e., Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) also joined in this condemnation. Letters and statements from the archives of the Fellowship of St. Albans and St. Sergius disseminated during this period to members of the fellowship reveal that there was suspicion about Met. Sergius’s motivations (i.e., Met. Sergius attacked Bulgakov to discredit Metropolitan Evlogy).40 Evlogy set up a committee in Paris to investigate Bulgakov’s orthodoxy, which reached a preliminary conclusion that his thought was free from heresy.41 However, an official conclusion was never reached. Albeit not agreeing with all that Bulgakov had to say, Evlogy nevertheless supported Bulgakov’s project to bring Orthodoxy in dialogue with the modern world.42 Unfortunately, charges of heresy by two major patriarchates left Bulgakov’s name irreparably damaged. Moreover, the growing interest and influence of the neo-patristic movement within the Russian émigré community in Paris led by his adversaries Vladimir Lossky and Georges Florovsky,43 which presented an alternative to Bulgakov’s sophiological project that rejected Sophiology out-of-hand as unnecessary at best or heretical at worst, had

The formative events

13

significant ramifications. With exception to a few friends and students in the émigré community, in particular, Lev Zander and Nicholas Zernov, after Bulgakov’s death, his thought and legacy were left to obscurity. Nevertheless, Bulgakov was a prolific theologian, who continued to write and publish until his death. His last work, The Apocalypse of John (1948), stresses the eschatological/ apocalyptic aspect of the Christian faith. The consciousness of the imminent coming of the Lord Jesus is “the central and most essential thing in our life.”44 This is remarkable given the context in which it was authored: the Nazi occupation of Paris and his failing health. His remarkable life came to a fitting end in 1944:45 witnesses at his death bed reported that the glory of God radiated from Bulgakov’s body. He manifested the glory of Sophia/God that he often referred to as a phenomenon associated with a Spirit-bearing saint, St. Seraphim the Sarov. Bulgakov, who dedicated a significant amount of his efforts to theologizing about the Spiritbearer, the Mother of God, and spirit-bearing, which means to be incorporated by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ, himself, bears the spirit at his death. Only in recent times has Bulgakov been rediscovered by the broader theological community.46 Brandon Gallaher cautions that this renewed interest in Bulgakov is largely a Western Christian, non-Orthodox phenomenon.47 However, there are promising signs that the Orthodox Church is rediscovering Bulgakov.48 For instance, Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, a member of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Moscow and an influential bishop, theologian, and ecumenist in the Russian Orthodox Church, has mentioned the necessity of rediscovering the insights of Bulgakov.49

Religious experience and the Madonna Evtuhov correctly observed that a transcendental experience presages Bulgakov’s shifts in ideological and religious orientation.50 Bulgakov’s rejection of marxism was no exception. His religious experience at the steppes of the Caucasus mountains and his encounter with Raphael’s Madonna prefaced his “broken faith” in marxism.51 For this study, it is important to note Bulgakov’s encounter with Raphael’s Madonna in 1898, as it involved his experience with the Mother of God and was formative in his Mariology.52 During the preparation of his dissertation, Bulgakov traveled through Europe with his wife. For pleasure, he visited the Zwinger gallery in Dresden, Germany. There he encountered Raphael’s Sistine Madonna for the first time. He recounts that after looking into the eyes of the Madonna, he experienced the depth of her purity and conscious self-sacrifice that led him to tears of joy and prayer.53 Note that at this time Bulgakov was still an avowed marxist. Nevertheless, the visage of Mary causes Bulgakov to experience compunction for his sin – his experience directly correlates to his description of the subjective element of the final judgment in his The Bride of the Lamb that involves compunction for sins committed brought about by the presence of the Theotokos. Bulgakov is quick to note, however,

14

The formative events

that his experience was “not an aesthetic emotion, no; it was an encounter, new knowledge, a miracle . . . I was still a Marxist then and I involuntarily called this contemplation a prayer.”54 The Mother of God leads Bulgakov for the first time in many years to pray.55 This encounter was so influential that in 1924, nearly twenty-six years later, Bulgakov made a special trip to Dresden to see the Sistine Madonna, hoping that Mary would again reveal herself to him. Nevertheless, his response to the Marian image speaks to the maturity of his theological thought as well as his re-embrace of Russian Orthodox Christianity. Bulgakov is appalled by Raphael’s image that for him personified the error of Western Catholic theology. Now an established Orthodox priest and theologian, who had recently recanted his fascination with Catholicism, Bulgakov accuses Raphael of heresy: he calls the Sistine Madonna “artistic Arianism – a heretical overestimation of the human element in the divine incarnation.”56 Raphael’s depiction of the Mother of God is an overly sensual,57 which is indicative of the Western Church’s anthropomorphization of God.58 A survey of Bulgakov’s theological thought from 1926 until 1944 reveals that Bulgakov rejects Catholicism precisely on account of this observation. This criticism is evident in Bulgakov’s The Burning Bush that he completed soon after this second visit to Dresden. Bulgakov criticizes Catholic Mariology for imputing an arbitrary notion of activity to God.59 God in this account is not an eternal being, but rather a time-contingent, juridical person who acts arbitrarily, exempting Mary from the original sin. In The Bride of the Lamb, this criticism is expanded in Bulgakov’s examination of the Western Catholic doctrine of God that he rejects on account of its “illegitimate anthropomorphism” that distinguishes will and intellect in the life of God.60 Bulgakov’s rejection of Raphael’s Madonna reveals his newfound insights about art and predilection for iconography. Accordingly, true art corresponds to the heavenly prototype and reminds us of the status of the person that it represents.61 Bulgakov describes true art as a depiction that “penetrates into the world’s heavenly fatherland”62 and “contain[s] within themselves the rays of truth of things, their ideas.”63 Art is a sacerdotal subject, and the artist has a religious vocation to depict through his/her subjectivity the world of images in the mind of God. In his essay, Icons and Iconstasis [1931]64 Bulgakov writes that the task of “art lies not in the real but in the ideal domain.”65 The goal of art is to reveal the meaning of a thing as opposed to the being of a thing, the thing in historical reality.66 With Bulgakov’s understanding of art in mind, we get a better sense about why Bulgakov was offended by Raphael’s Madonna but also the importance of aesthetics in his Mariology. Where Raphael fails is his attempt to portray the historical Mary, which does little more than bespeak of his puerile prejudice and arbitrariness.67 To objectively recover the historical Mary for artistic depiction is impossible. This is due in part to the lack of historical evidence for her physical appearance, but also all that we know about Mary comes from the Christian faith tradition. This tradition must be considered to properly portray the woman

The formative events

15

who gave birth to the savior of the world. Playing on the imagery of truth as glory manifested as light, Bulgakov insists that Raphael’s Madonna is not the light of Orthodoxy but “phosphorescent decay.”68 Mary the Theotokos, the Spirit-bearer, Ever-Virgin, who constantly intercedes for humankind, cannot be divorced from the Mary of history. The icons of Mary are the purest artistic representation of Mary since they not only consider the faith tradition but who Mary is in salvation history. Interestingly, Bulgakov’s rejection of historical or merely human representations of Mary in art transfers to his theology. His mariological works are concerned with the Mary of faith (i.e., Mary as she exists in heaven). He makes no attempt at recovering the historical Mary because not only are objective historical representations impossible, but his objective is to understand better the Mother of God whom he encountered at Dresden in 1898 and the liturgical life of the Orthodox faith tradition, not a quest for the historical Mary that presupposes that the Mary of faith differs from the historical Mary.

Sexuality and the Russian Religious Renaissance Bulgakov’s rejection of Raphael’s sensual depiction of Mary was not merely a result of Bulgakov’s conservatism associated with Orthodox sexual ethics, and iconography but also corresponds to his movement away from erotic Sophia and interest in sexuality that preoccupied his attention earlier in his career.69 As Kozyrev recently revealed in his publication of Bulgakov’s notes and articles on sexuality, “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe v Bozhestve [Male and Female in the Godhead]” and “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe [Male and Female],” sexuality was an important issue for Bulgakov, especially in the early 1920s.70 Although Bulgakov downplays erotic elements in his thought on sexuality in his trilogies, the role he attributes to gender and his reflection on gender in his mature theological works were directly appropriated from the discussions and popular publications during the first two decades of the twentieth century that is known as the Russian Religious Renaissance.71 In particular, Bulgakov’s gender essentialism and ideas on spiritual bisexuality, which play a major role in his anthropology, and for my study offers important implications for his Mariology, share much in common with theories of gender/sexuality that were popular in the Russian Religious Renaissance.72 There is little doubt that the Russian Religious Renaissance influenced Bulgakov’s overemphasis on sexuality that is not characteristic of the Orthodox theology of his contemporaries. Bulgakov’s interest in sex and ideas about human bisexuality shares affinities with popular discussions about sex during the Russian Religious Renaissance. Recent studies by Olga Matich,73 Evgenii Bershtein, and Kristi Goberg74 reveal the widespread fascination with sex and gender among the prominent Russian thinkers in this period. One of the most popular theories during this period was the idea that humankind was androgynous

16

The formative events

or bisexual.75 Human androgyny was viewed in both an ontological and psychological/pathological context. The popularity of this doctrine in Russia was undoubtedly due to Solov’ev and his The Meaning of Love but also the emerging field of sexual psychopathology. This idea about the human androgyny will seem outmoded to many modern readers since it appropriates the male-female binary and gives little emphasis to the context in which sexuality is expressed. For Bulgakov and his peers, this idea was not considered eccentric but rather a valid scientific perspective to be taken seriously. Several scholarly studies published during this period gave credence to this point of view including Otto Weininger’s book, Sex and Character,76 which provided an extensive study of sexuality and argued for universal bisexuality. This book created nothing less than a “popular mania” in Russia, and it was required reading among the intelligentsia.77 Preempting the conclusions of the controversial Kinsey report by almost fifty years, Weininger argued against complete sexual differentiation because all people remain bisexual.78 Weininger joined a cadre of voices in Europe espousing some form of androgyny. Sigmund Freud and Karl Jung were the most notable, influential figures in Russia that advocated this theory. While Freud believed the innate bisexuality needed to be cured, his student and later adversary Karl Jung, however, took a mythical approach to bisexuality that treated bisexuality as the archetypical element in human psychology: His animal animus theory posits androgyny as the basis of well adjusted behavior. The anima, or the unconscious female side of a man, and the animus, the male counterpart in a woman, must be integrated into the Self for the person to become an emotionally balanced and effective adult. Without the integration of the contra sexual opposite, there is discord and neurosis.79 For Jung, proper psychological development entails the embrace of our bisexuality in a balanced manner. It should not be surprising that given the proliferation of bisexual theories among noted German scholars whose works were available in Russian translation, many prominent Russian thinkers with whom Bulgakov was intimately associated adhered to one form of androgyny or another. Besides Vladimir Solov’ev, Bulgakov’s closest associates, including Pavel Florensky,80 Bulgakov’s best friend and mentor, Nicholas Berdiaev, Andrei Bely, Dmitrii Merezhkovsky, Zinaida Gippius, Fedor Sologub, and Vasilii Vasil’evich Rozanov all embraced an androgynous/bisexual understanding of humankind.81 Nevertheless, Bulgakov does not employ the human androgyny in any meaningful way until 1917, when he published his Unfading Light. One exception was a letter he wrote to Rozanov in 1912.82 Bulgakov praises Rozanov for his new book, People of the Moonlight, which proposes the innate bisexuality of men and women, but criticizes Rozanov for equating

The formative events

17

sex with sexuality.83 In The Burning Bush, Bulgakov will return to this criticism in the context of explicating his doctrine of the Mother of God that stresses that Mary has sex but no sexuality, for sex is a function of spiritual nature, while sexuality is our expression of this nature that is tainted by sin. Since Mary never expressed her sex in a sinful manner, we cannot meaningfully speak about her sexuality. Finding the source for Bulgakov’s bisexual treatment is dubious, since not only was it popular among his peers, academia, and taught by Solov’ev, but also evinced by various authors Bulgakov read, including Jacob Boehme and Meister Eckhart.84 Nevertheless, the issue of sexuality after 1917 was a grave concern for Bulgakov. This is evident in his unpublished essays, “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe v Bozhestve [Male and Female in the Godhead]” and “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe.” In these works, in addition to clarifying his thoughts on sexuality, Bulgakov distances himself from Solov’ev’s erotic and androgynous Sophia85 and Anna Schmidt,86 who appropriated human sexuality to the Godhead. The visionary Schmidt, with whom Bulgakov was fascinated in the previous decade, is violently rejected by Bulgakov.87 Bulgakov in these works clearly rejects human androgyny and prefers human spiritual bisexuality, which has less gnostic overtones and is more rooted in social science. Later in his theological works, he continues to employ the theory of spiritual bisexuality; however, he links his thought to Genesis 1:27.88

Conclusion Although Bulgakov is one of the most unique Orthodox thinkers of the past century, many of his ideas were inspired by social and philosophical ferment in Russia during the decades before the Bolshevik revolution and subsequent exile from Russia. These years are formative for his theology that he began to publish in 1925. Incorporating many of the insights of his peers and his personal religious experience of Mary, Bulgakov will fashion an original and systematic portrait of the Mother of God.

Notes 1 Catherine Evtuhov, The Cross and the Sickle, (New York: Cornell University Press, 1997), p. 22. Death was ever-present in Bulgakov’s childhood. We do not know the effect this reality had on his psychological development; however, it is of interest to note that death remains an important part of his mature theology. Bulgakov had two near-death experiences that are recorded in the publication, Sophiology of Death. He references the death of his son as well as his near-death experiences in important works like Unfading Light, Jacob’s Ladder, The Bride of the Lamb, and Sophiology of Death. In the latter works, Bulgakov develops a theology of death. 2 Sergius N. Bulgakov, Autobiograficheskie zametki, Edited by Lev A. Zander, (Paris: YMCA Press, 1946), p. 103. 3 Ibid.

18

The formative events

4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., pp. 104–105. 6 Bulgakov described himself as a devotee of the marxist religion, and “theologian of Marxism.” This entailed the defense of three dogmas: 1) man is an accidental conjunction of material atoms; 2) man is a species of monkey, and his ideas are a reflex of economic life; 3) man is led not by personal but by class desire. (Sergius N. Bulgakov, “From Marxism to Sophiology,” (Review in Religion 1.4 (1937): pp. 361–368), p. 362.) 7 Evtuhov, pp. 33–34. 8 He summarized his rejection of marxism in his essay on Marx entitled Karl Marx as a Religious Type that originally appeared in the journal Moscow Weekly in 1906 and then again as a separate work in 1907. In this work, he demonstrates that Marx was not a successor to Hegel, eliciting only a cursory understanding of Hegel, but rather a follower of Feuerbach. (For a detailed account of this position and Bulgakov’s critique of Marxism, see Sergei N. Bulgakov, Karl Marx as a Religious Type: His Relation to the Religion of Anthropotheism of L. Feuerbach, Translated by Luba Barna, (Belmont, MA: Norland Publishing Company, 1979).) He regarded marxism as a pseudo-religion that required uncritical faith from its followers; it rested on an inadequate historical foundation, was deterministic, and made eschatological and utopian claims that lacked any philosophical foundation. At the philosophical level, marxism was marred by blatant inconsistencies. Marxism subscribed to a positivist understanding of the world that was deterministic. All things could be explained by the natural forces of nature. Yet marxists claimed that the goal of humankind was to break free of these forces. (Paul Valliere, Modern Russian Theologians: Bukharev, Solov’ev, Bulgakov. [MRT] (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), p. 223.) Breaking free of these forces entails free will, which presupposes indeterminism (Bulgakov, PE, p. 281). Thus Bulgakov retorted that here a blatant inconsistency is apparent: existence is explained in terms of deterministic processes, yet human freedom is maintained that requires a denial of determinism. His critique of marxism goes further because if determinism is affirmed and freedom is denied, then marxism leads to pessimism. All our actions are scripted and therefore the rationale and pragmatic concern for fellow citizens are meaningless, for no matter what we say or do the course of events will not change. The bare truth is “unfreedom and imprisonment by the elements in the fetters of economic necessity; it reflects the tragedy of mortal life, condemned to the perpetual struggle of death” (Bulgakov, PE, p. 273). 9 Evtuhov, p. 185. 10 The Slavophile movement, though always comprised of a minority of Russian intellectuals, persisted throughout the nineteenth and into the twentieth century; however, especially during the years leading up to the Silver Age, which is classified by a burst in creativity and original thinking/experimentation in Russian thought, culture, and ascetics, the Slavophile tradition was taken up by still a small albeit influential minority. Catherine Evtuhov argues that until the 1870s the Slavophile movement consisted of a “somewhat vague antirationalism” that included remarkable figures such as Fyodor Dostoevsky and Vladimir Solov’ev (Evtuhov, p. 7). The first author to offer a full-scale assault on positivism and rationalism, which were tenets of Western society, at least from the perspective of the Slavophiles, was Vladimir Solov’ev. Solov’ev’ influence on idealists like Bulgakov went beyond his alternative philosophical system to his rediscovery of the Romantic Eternal Feminine. 11 George Putnam, “Russian Liberalism Challenged from within: Bulgakov and Berdyayev in 1904–5,” (The Slavonic and East European Review 43.101 (1965): pp. 335–353), p. 336.

The formative events

19

12 Sobornost is sometimes translated as catholicity. However, a better translation is “gathering” or “conciliarity” in the widest sense. (Cf. Aidan Nichols, Wisdom from Above: A Primer in the Theology of Sergius Bulgakov, (Leominster: Gracewing, 2005), p. 199.) Aleksei Khomiakov, the most well-known Slavophile, popularized sobornost. His thought was developed in his polemic with Hegel ,who was en vogue in Russia during his time. Debates raged in Russian over the place of Russia in the world. (Ana Siljak, “Between East and West: Hegel and the Origins of the Russian Dilemma,” (Journal of the History of Ideas 62 (2001): pp. 335–358), p. 343.) Khomiakov criticized Hegel’s failure to understand unity. For him, Hegel propounded individualism that divided humanity. Khomiakov saw Hegel’s individualism as endemic to Western society. Sobornost, which correctly explained the interconnectedness of humankind, was only preserved in East and more specifically in the Orthodox Church that remained a “living community governed by the free consent of her members” (C.f. Siljak, p. 357). 13 On the importance of Christianity to socialism, Bulgakov writes: “Only on religious grounds, where the highest manifestation of individuality brings together and unifies all in a supra-individual love and common life, only unification of people through Christ in God, that is, church, a personal and simultaneously superpersonal union, is capable of overcoming this difficulty and, while confirming individuality, preserving the whole.” (Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Karl Marks kak religioznyi tip,” Moskovskii ezhenedel’ nik, 1906, nos. 22–25, p. 61 in Evtuhov, p. 105.) 14 In 1905, Bulgakov was considered the leader of institutional and social reform in the Russian Church (Evtuhov, p. 117). For information on Bulgakov’s position see: Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Politicheskoe osvobozhdenie i tserkovnaia reforma” (Voprosy zhizni 4–5 (April–May 1905): pp. 491–522). 15 Valliere, MRT, p. 246. Bulgakov’s attempt at recreating Russia with a religious foundation after the revolution of 1905 and again in 1907, where he served as a representative to the Second Duma (March–June 1907) on its commissions on the Church and workers, failed. Though Bulgakov saw the importance of religiosity, at this point in his life he was not Orthodox, he returned to the sacramental life of the Church only in autumn of 1908 after his providential meeting with an elder who forgave his sins. Valliere argues that his conversion occurred in late 1907 (Valliere, MRT, p. 242.) However, this contradicts Bulgakov’s account of his conversion as occurring in the fall of 1908. (Sergius N. Bulgakov, “My Conversion” in Sergius Bulgakov: A Bulgakov Anthology, Edited by James Pain and Nicolas Zernov, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), p. 12.) 16 On his disillusionment, now Bulgakov writes: “I believe that Russia will be saved not by new parties but by new people.” (Sergius N. Bulgakov, Institut russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom), St. Petersburg, 377, p. 3 in Evtuhov, pp. 127–128.) 17 After he returned to the Church, he felt his call to the priesthood strongly in 1908. (Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Autobiographical Notes” in A Bulgakov Anthology, Edited by James Pain and Nicolas Zernov, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976. p. 6.) He refused to entertain his priestly calling precisely because he refused to be a part of the holy orders so long as the Church avowed its fidelity to the autocracy. His concern for his fellow Russians was so strong that later in life, now an established priest and theologian, recalling his rejection of the Church as a child, he recounts that he did not regret his choice. Regarding his hesitation to be ordained, in his Autobiographical Notes he writes, “There had been another humanly insurmountable obstacle: the link between Orthodoxy and autocracy, which resulted in a pernicious and humiliating dependence of the Church upon the state and in a curious kind of caesaro-papism. This I could not get over, and it was not right that I should. Now in 1917 this obstacle was removed.” (Ibid., p. 7.)

20

The formative events

18 Winston Ferris Crum, “The Doctrine of Sophia According to Sergius N. Bulgakov,” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard: Harvard University, 1965), p. 6. 19 Evtuhov, pp. 138–139. 20 Godhumanhood appears occasionally in Russian theology; however, the first scholar to treat it as a central idea was Solov’ev. (Valliere, MRT, p. 144.) He did this in his famous Lectures on Godhumanhood. Note that I have opted for a gender-inclusive translation of Bogochelovechestvo. 21 Labor is permeated with a sophianic quality that allows the laborer to engage the object of his/her work and transform that work from dead material to a living being. It is through labor that the laborer can recapitulate the world from its fallen, sinful state to the sophianic state experienced in Eden. Nature through this labor becomes humanized, the peripheral body of man. (Sergius N. Bulgakov, Philosophy of Economy: The World as Household. Edited and Translated by Catherine Evtuhov. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. p. 106 in Evtuhov, p. 168.) In this work, Bulgakov provides his Christian anthropology that he will refine throughout his life. Labor is the means for entrance into Christian economy, for a proprietor’s labor builds the kingdom of God. It is not clear in The Philosophy of Economy the active role Christ plays. Also, economy evokes something more than a popular North American usage that denotes the peculiarities of an economic system of a nation. Economy, as alluded to in his subtitle of The Philosophy of Economy, “The World as Household” addresses the interaction between humankind and the world, but also humankind and God, and God and humankind. In this book, Bulgakov expounds important ideas that help to explain the collectivity of humanity, ontological personalism. Moreover, this work develops key ideas such as the “all-humanity of Adam” that Bulgakov will again contemplate in his Unfading Light (1917), Burning Bush (1927), and Bride of the Lamb (1945). 22 Valery A. Kuvakin, A History of Russian Philosophy: From the Tenth Through the Twentieth Centurie, Vol. 2, (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1994), p. 637. 23 Bulgakov’s original intention as evinced by his preface in The Philosophy of Economy was to write two volumes that addressed this issue: first referring to the relation between flesh and spirit and the second on the meaning of history and culture. Though he never writes the second volume, as he initially envisioned, he addresses the material that he intended to write about in his Unfading Light in 1917. 24 Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Hypostasis and Hypostaticity: Scholia to Unfading Light,” Edited and Translated by Anastassy Brandon Gallaher and Kukota Irina, (St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49.1–2 (2005): pp. 5–46). Unlike Unfading Light, this work does not address gnostic variants of Sophiology. The main sources that Bulgakov quotes are the Scriptures and Church Fathers. 25 Prior to his election to this council he wrote “The Athos Affair,” (Russian Thought 9 (1913): pp. 37–46). In this work, he argues that the Athos monks were following the Palamite tradition and therefore consistent with Orthodoxy. The question of the name-worshippers was settled not by an ecumenical council but rather bureaucratic measures employed to squelch them. Nevertheless, the debate has never been officially settled by the Russian Orthodox Church. (Cf. Myroslaw Tataryn, “Between Patriarch and Pope: The Theological Struggle of Sergius Bulgakov” in In God’s Hands: Essays on the Church and Ecumenism in Honor of Michael A. Fahey SJ, Edited by Jaroslav Z. Skira and Michael S. Attridge, pp. 137–159, (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006), p. 140.) 26 Evtuhov, p. 197. 27 Sergius N. Bulgakov, “The Guardian of the House of the Lord,” (The Slavonic Review 4.10 (June 1925): pp. 156–164), p. 159. Writing about the fate of his

The formative events

28 29 30

31 32 33 34 35 36

37 38

39 40

21

mother Church, in 1924, Bulgakov wrote: “The whole world might now behold the spiritual force contained in the humble Orthodox Church. For Russia, this is indeed an unexpected miracle of divine grace. Let the Christian Churches and denominations of other countries and nations say whether they are certain of finding in themselves such a power of faith and readinesses for martyrdom as have been shown by the Russian Church in these days of sorrow.” (Sergius N. Bulgakov, “The Old and the New: A Study in Russian Religion,” (The Slavonic Review 2.6 (1924): pp. 487–513), p. 501.) Tataryn, “Between Patriarch and Pope,” p. 141. Ibid., p. 139. Quoted in Ibid., p. 138. Oddly, his fascination with Catholicism seems to directly correspond to Solov’ev’s struggle with Catholicism. However, there is good reason to believe that Solov’ev converted to Catholicism. See Zouboff’s introduction to Solov’ev’s Lectures on Godmanhood that provides an interesting overview of the debate on Solov’ev’s alleged conversion. Zouboff concludes that Solov’ev did convert to Catholicism. (Peter Zouboff, “Introduction” in Lectures on Divine Humanity, Translated by Peter Zouboff, (San Rafael, CA: Semantron, 2007), p. 24.) Nevertheless, although Solov’ev argued for the need of the Pope, he contended that the Eastern Church must retain its autonomy and the Pope’s autocracy must be limited to Western Christendom. (Ante Kadic, “Vladimir Solov’ev and Bishop Strossmayer,” (American Slavic and East European Review 20.2 (1961): pp. 163–188), p. 177.) Tataryn, “Between Patriarch and Pope,” p. 153. Ibid., p. 153. Sergius N. Bulgakov, Sous les Remparts de Chersonèse, Translated by Bernard Marchadier, (Geneva: Ad Solem, 1999), p. 98. Smith, “Introduction” to The Burning Bush, p. xix. On the aspect of Church unity, Bulgakov believed that the Orthodox and Catholics churches were united at a mystical level. (Bulgakov, Sous les Remparts de Chersonèse, p. 10.) Smith, “Introduction” in Bulgakov, The Burning Bush, p. xix. Bulgakov’s target here is the Primacy of Peter as understood by Catholic theologians “as the fullness of all the offices – high priestly, the royal, and the prophetic.” (Sergius N. Bulgakov, “St. Peter and St. John” in Sergius Bulgakov: A Bulgakov Anthology, Edited by James Pain and Nicolas Zernov, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), p. 84. This essay was recently translated into French in 2010 by YMCA Press under the title Les deux saints premiers Apôtres Pierre et Jean.) In his reflection, he states that it was John and not Peter who fulfills the office of prophet as evinced by his authoring of final book of the Bible, Revelation. Peter’s office is a primacy of honor, not authority. Peter’s authority as jurisdiction is not absolute and is circumscribed by not only the authority of John but also Paul. (Ibid., p. 80.) Smith, “Introduction” in Bulgakov, The Burning Bush, p. xix. These two books with his Jacob’s Ladder (1929) comprise Bulgakov’s minor trilogy. Bulgakov believed that the instrumental significance that the churches stemming from the reformation accorded Mary was indicative of a poor Christology. Christ does not simply take on Mary’s humanity, but abides in Mary’s humanity. Therefore, the Incarnation must include Mary and Christ. (Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Correspondences: The Incarnation and the Virgin Birth,” (Sobornost 14 (June 1938): pp. 32–34), p. 33.) See Chapter 5 for my discussion of this point. Valliere, MRT, p. 287. Cf. A. F. Dobbie-Bateman, Confidential Note for the Executive, (Oxford, UK: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Archives, 21 October 1933). To complicate matters, Metropolitan Evlogy left communion with the Patriarchate

22

41

42 43

44 45

46 47 48 49 50

51

The formative events of Moscow for communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople because the Russian Church professed fidelity to the Soviet State. Moreover, no bishop had authority to effectively sanction Bulgakov except his ordinary, Metropolitan Evlogy. The majority report reached a preliminary conclusion. Although it requested more time for deliberation against the accusations, it “refutes” and considers the accusations of “heresy not proved.” (Report of the Commission Appointed to Consider the Works of Archpriest S. N. Bulgakov, (Oxford: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Archives).) Valliere, MRT, p. 288. While Lossky explicitly attacks Bulgakov’s thought – see Vladimir Lossky, Spor o Sofii: ‘Dokladnaia Zapiska’ prot. S. Bulgakova i smysl Ukaz Moskovskoi Patriarkhii, (Brotherhood of St. Photius: Paris, 1936) – Florovsky never directly attacks Bulgakov. Klimoff writes: “And it is particularly startling to discover that there seems to be absolutely nothing in the corpus of writings published by Florovsky in his lifetime that could qualify as an explicit attack on Sophiology.” (Alexis Klimoff, “Georges Florovsky and the Sophiological Controversy,” (St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49.1–2 (2005): pp. 67–100), p. 75.) Sergius N. Bulgakov, “The Apocalypse of John” in Sergius Bulgakov: A Bulgakov Anthology, Edited by James Pain and Nicolas Zernov, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976) p. 158. Sister Joanna’s, who was Bulgakov’s disciple and iconographer, description of his death provides a fitting end to Bulgakov’s life and career. She states that Bulgakov’s face emitted a bright light, suggesting that Bulgakov was emitting the glory of God. We find here clear allusions to St. Seraphim of Sarov’s revelation in God’s glory to his disciple. (Cf. Boris Jakim, Variable Readings in Russian Philosophy No 2: Sergius Bulgakov: Apocatastasis and Transfiguration, Edited and Translated by Boris Jakim, (London: The Variable Press, 1995.). A promising sign of interest in Bulgakov is the translations of his works into English. As of 2017, Bulgakov’s minor and major trilogy are available in English. Brandon Gallaher, “There Is Freedom: The Dialectic of Freedom and Necessity in the Trinitarian Theologies of Sergii Bulgakov, Karl Barth and Hans Urs von Balthasar,” (Ph.D. diss., Oxford: Oxford University, 2010), p. 45. Antoine Arjakovsky, “The Sophiology of Father Sergius Bulgakov and Contemporary Western Theology,” (St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49.1–2 (2005): pp. 219–235), p. 221. These remarks by Bishop Hilarion were made at the beginning of the conference in Moscow, March 2001. It is cited in Ibid., p. 222. Evtuhov, p. 45. For Bulgakov, religious experience, which he writes about in his second major Sophiological work, Unfading Light (1917), was authoritative. Bulgakov’s minor and major trilogies are littered with references to his own experience. For instance, in Jacob’s Ladder, Bulgakov begins his reflection on angelology with a short discourse on his experience with his guardian angel; similarly, in The Bride of the Lamb, Bulgakov reflects on his experience of death, which in its entirety is published in Sophiology of Death. Sophiology of Death recounts his experience in detail; whereas in the Bride of the Lamb, Bulgakov writes a theology of death based on his experience. His theological works are replete with emotion and his personality. This being the case, it should not be surprising that Bulgakov’s Mariology is largely an elucidation of his relationship with Mary, especially during the liturgical celebration. Bulgakov, UF, p. 11. With respect to the first encounter, in 1895, Bulgakov received what he considered a revelation from nature. He recounts that after seeing the Caucus Mountains he could not “be reconciled to nature without God.” (Bulgakov, “My Conversion,” p. 10.)

The formative events

23

52 T. Allan Smith writes that this encounter left “a deep imprint on his soul.” (Smith, “Introduction” in Bulgakov, The Burning Bush, p. xiii.) 53 ‘Dve vstrechi (1898–1924). (Iz zapisnoi knizhki),’ in Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Vladimir Solov’ev i Anna Schmidt” in Tikhie Dumy, pp. 389–396, (Moskva: Respublika) cited in S. S. Averintsev, “‘Dve vstrechi’ O. Sergiia Bulgakova v istoriko-kul’turnom kontekste” in S. N. Bulgakov: Religiozno-filosofskii put, Edited by Aleksei? Pavlovich Kozyrev, (Moscow: Russian Way, 2003). June 26, 2012, www.rp-net.ru/book/articles/materialy/bulgakov/averincev.php. 54 Bulgakov, UF, p. 10. 55 Ibid., pp. 10–11. 56 Evgenii Bershtein,“The Notion of Universal Bisexuality in Russian Religious Philosophy” in Understanding Russianness, Edited by Risto Alapuro, pp. 210–231, (London: Routledge, 2012), p. 225. 57 Cf. Ibid., p. 225. 58 Ibid. 59 Cf. Bulgakov, BB, p. 37. 60 Cf. Bulgakov, BL, p. 32. 61 Averintsev, “‘Dve vstrechi’ O. Sergiia Bulgakova v istoriko-kul’turnom kontekste.” 62 Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Religion and Art” in The Church of God: An AngloRussian Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St. Albans and St. Sergius, Edited by E. L. Mascall, pp. 173–192, (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1934), p. 180. 63 Ibid., p. 181. 64 In this work Bulgakov is much more sedate in his evaluation of Raphael’s Madonna. However, he insists that it fails to be an icon, which for Bulgakov is the highest achievement for art. 65 Sergius N. Bulgakov, Icons and the Name of God, Translated by Boris Jakim, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012, Kindle Digital File), Ch. 3, Sec. 3, Location 590 of 2657. 66 Bulgakov argues that mirror-reflections of a person or a thing are not possible since art always involves the subjectivity of the artist. It is even impossible to depict images that we have seen with our own eyes objectively since “the natural image . . . is always a synthesis unconsciously performed for us.” (Ibid., Ch. 3, Sec. 3, Location 594 of 2657.) 67 Note that that his mariological publication, The Burning Bush is based on the icon of the Burning Bush that depicts the Mother of God in her glorification. 68 Bulgakov, Sous les Remparts de Chersonèse, p. 16. 69 According to Bulgakov, Sophia is the divine ousia. However, they are not completely synonymous. Divine ousia refers to both God as the Absolute and God as the self-Revealer. Sophia deals only with the latter. Sophia is therefore ousia revealed, which includes the content (wisdom) and manifestation of that revelation (glory). (Cf. Bulgakov, Sophia, pp. 33–36.) Ultimately the goal for Bulgakov is to replace abstract notions of divinity with a personalistic notion of divinity. For Bulgakov what we say about God needs to correspond to our religious experience. Theology must be based in our encounter with the resurrected Lord; to do otherwise is simply abstract philosophy that has little value for theology since it obscures the living God that we encounter. Sophiology is relevant because it provides Bulgakov with linguistic tools for expressing religious experience. Bulgakov limits the erotic implications of Sophia that are found in Solov’ev. Solov’ev appropriates human love, which he understands to be erotic, to Sophia. Human love seeks unity, to overcome the division of the sexes. Put in another way, sexual desire is driven by our search for Sophia created unity. Sophia is the real object of our sexual love. (Groberg, Kristi A. “The Eternal Feminine:

24

70

71

72

73

74

75 76 77 78 79 80

The formative events Vladimir Solov’ ev’s Visions of Sophia.” Alexandria 1 (1991): 77–95, pp. 84–85.) He speaks of this in his The Meaning of Love. Bulgakov retains Solov’ev stress on love as a category for explicating Sophia (Cf. Bulgakov, Sophia, pp. 35, 73.); however, he simply leaves out Solov’ev’s emphasis on erotic love in his theological works written from 1925 until his death in 1944. Moreover, as opposed to Solov’ev stress on the unitive function of love, Bulgakov stresses the kenotic/self-sacrificing aspect of love. (Cf. Bulgakov, BL, p. 49.) Cf. Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe v Bozhestve” in S. N. Bulgakov: Religiozno-filosofskii put, Edited by Aleksei? Pavlovich Kozyrev, (Moscow: Russian Way, 2003), pp. 343–364; “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe” pp. 365–388; “Fragment 1” pp. 389–390; “Fragment 2” pp. 391–395 in S. N. Bulgakov: Religiozno-filosofskii put, Edited by Aleksei? Pavlovich Kozyrev, pp. 343–364, (Moscow: Russian Way, 2003). The Russian Religious Renaissance is an important movement within the broader cultural period known as the Silver Age. The time frame usually associated with this is the late 1890s to the end of the Russian Civil War in 1921. Note that Nicholas Zernov was the first to define “The Russian Religious Renaissance” as such. See his book: Nicholas Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century, (New York: Harper and Row, 1963). Also, this renaissance is characterized by an emphasis on non-rational solutions in contrast to the positivism of the day. Many thinkers during this period were syncretistic and drew from a variety of fields including Orthodoxy, the occult, and even sexual psychopathology. Many theologians find Bulgakov’s emphasis on sexuality as arbitrary and unfounded. For example, Deane-Drummond accuses Bulgakov of making obtuse statements about the sexuality of God. (Celia Deane-Drummond, Christ and Evolution: Wonder and Wisdom, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), p. 123.) Olga Matich, “Androgyny and the Russian Religious Renaissance” in Western Philosophical Systems in Russian Literature: A Collection of Critical Studies, Edited by Anthony Mlikotin, pp. 165–175, (Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press, 1979), p. 65. Kristi A. Groberg presents an insightful essay on the occult origins of the Russian Religious Renaissance in “The Feminine Occult Sophia in the Russian Religious Renaissance: A Bibliographical Essay,” (Canadian American Slavic Studies 26.1–3 (1992): pp. 197–240). On issues of sexuality, gender, and fetishism and how they were expressed during this time see Olga Matich, Erotic Utopia: The Decadent Imagination of in Russia’s Fin de Siècle, (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2005). Cf. Bernice Rosenthal, “Nature and Function of Sophia in Sergei Bulgakov’s Prerevolutionary Thought” in Russian Religious Thought, Edited by Judith Kornblatt, pp. 154–175, (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996), p. 170. Otto Weininger, Geschlecht und Charakter: Eine prinzipielle Untersuchung, (Wien/Leipzig: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1903). Bershtein, p. 212. Ibid., p. 213. Matich, “Androgyny and the Russian Religious Renaissance,” p. 171. Florensky is an important figure in the genesis of Bulgakov’s thought because Bulgakov expands upon many of his ideas presented in Florensky’s dissertation Pillar and Ground of Truth that Bulgakov helped him prepare for publication. This work, especially letter eleven on friendship, is replete with allusions to innate bisexuality. This is indicated by his choice for male friendship as the operative analogy to express Christian love that rests on his essentialist understanding

The formative events

81 82

83 84 85 86

87

25

of the human individual as composed of feminine and masculine principles. In a letter to his friend El’chaninov, Florensky wrote: “A man seeks an object sufficiently passive to receive his energy. For the majority of men, such objects are women. There are insufficiently masculine natures who seek their complement in masculine men, but there are also hyper-masculine men, for whom the feminine is too yielding, as yielding as a cushion, for instance, to a steel blade. That kind seeks and loves simply men, or insufficiently masculine men.” [Emphasis added] (Avril Pyman, Pavel Florensky: A Quiet Genius, (New York: Continuum, 2010), p. 71.) Pyman attempts to explain this odd statement by asserting that Florensky was still under the spell of Plato, and thus he “added the ‘hyper-masculine’ to the three genders proposed by Plato.” Although Plato propounds an androgynous creation myth in his Symposium, with which Florensky was familiar, the androgynous understanding of the sexes was a hallmark of Slavophile and symbolist movements of pre-Soviet Russia. (Matich, “Androgyny and the Russian Religious Renaissance,” p. 173.) Viewed against this background, his choice for same-sex love reflects a bisexual account of humankind. Hyper-masculine as well as insufficiently masculine men could also be expressed as insufficiently feminine or overly feminine men. Note in his account the feminine gender is largely passive. Thus, a normal man can find his balance in a woman since her passive feminine nature can receive his masculinity. (Bershtein, p. 216.) Matich, “Androgyny and the Russian Religious Renaissance,” pp. 168–170. Rozanov was involved in the sexual debate that occurred in 1906. His magnum opus on this issue was published in 1911entitled People of the Moonlight: Metaphysics of Christianity (Lyudi lunnogo sveta: metafizika khristianstva). In this book, he argues for a third sex, the spiritual sodomites. A spiritual sodomite is a person in whom one gender principle has dominance. His underlying anthropology supposes a “notion of universal bisexuality (dvupolost’), that is, the idea that every human being is a combination of masculine and feminine elements.” (Bershtein, p. 211.) A spiritual sodomite is unique because he/she possesses a predominance of the opposite gender. Bershtein, p. 223. Note that Bulgakov considered Rozanov his teacher. Florensky and Bulgakov ontologize Rozanov’s metaphysical interpretation of universal bisexuality. (Bershtein, p. 226.) Bulgakov was familiar with Jacob Boehme not only through Solov’ev but also his own study of him. He provides an extended evaluation of Boehme in Unfading Light. Cf. Judith Deutsch Kornblatt, “Solov’ev’s Androgynous Sophia and Jewish Kabbalah,” Slavic Review 50.3 (Autumn 1991): pp. 487–496. Bulgakov was fascinated by Schmidt before the Bolshevik revolution. He thought she was a mystic and was impressed by her ability to grasp Solov’ev’s thought; he authors an important study of her work. Moreover, he references her in his Unfading Light. (His respectful study of Schmidt was published in Bulgakov, “Vladimir Solov’ev i Anna Schmidt,” pp. 71–144.) In Unfading Light, Bulgakov frequently draws attention to Schmidt in his footnotes in section three that addresses anthropology. He compares her to Cabbala. However, we begin to see his criticism of her here. A few years later in his manuscripts, Bulgakov engages Schmidt in a violent polemic, accusing her of delirium. (Bulgakov, “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe v Bozhestve,” Edited by Aleksei Pavlovich Kozyrev p. 346.) Although her Sophiology is obscure, Schmidt believed she was the incarnation of Sophia in its femininity. She is the Bride-Mother. Her masculine counterpart is Solov’ev, whom she believed to be Raphael, the incarnation of Christ. There are overtures of an androgynous union between the Schmidt and Solov’ev. Cioran

26

The formative events

argues that Bulgakov was fascinated more than anyone else at that time with the affair between Schmidt and Solov’ev. (Samuel D. Cioran, “The Affair of Anna N. Schmidt and Vladimir Solov’ev,” (Canadian Slavonic Papers 16.1 (1974): pp. 39–60), p. 59, n. 47.) 88 Bershtein interprets Bulgakov’s antipathy toward Schmidt as endemic to the development of his mature Sophiology that included the “obliteration of all traces of sexuality from his vision of Sophia” (Bershtein, p. 225). This can help explain why the erotic dimension of Sophia is noticeably absent from the works published during his theological period.

2

Bulgakov’s method and sources

We now move to discuss Bulgakov’s approach to theology. Bulgakov is a sophiologist, and Sophiology is the mediating principle for his theology. To that end, this chapter begins with an explanation of his Sophiology and demonstrates that Sophiology is an antinomic system that is personalistic and rests on a theory of kenosis. Afterward, I turn to how his sophiological orientation influences his Mariology. Whereas his Sophiology is based on dialectics that engender antinomies, many of the great theological debates in the history of Orthodoxy produced dialectics that Bulgakov attempts to synthesize. His Mariology is a synthesis of Nestorianism and the teachings of the Council of Ephesus (CE 431). This chapter then examines the main authoritative sources on which his thought relies. Although Bulgakov’s Sophiology is a holistic system that draws from various sources, including the Church Fathers, German idealism, personal experience, in terms of his Mariology, the Bible and the liturgy have a primary significance. We will examine how these sources interact with one another, but also how Bulgakov uses these sources to justify his claims about Mary.

Sophia Although Bulgakov is a Russian Sophiologist, Bulgakov was quite conservative and traditional in his theological outlook. He did not view Sophiology as a new theology or a system contrary to Orthodoxy, but rather as a legitimate theological tradition based on the Russian experience of Orthodoxy and the Church Fathers. However, Bulgakov recognized that Sophiology is a theologoumena, not a dogma of the Church. Much of his theological work attempts to demonstrate the continuity of his Sophiology with the Church Fathers and, in particular, Gregory Palamas.1 In his first theological essay on Sophia “Hypostasis and Hypostaticity: Scholia to Unfading Light” (1925) after his “Catholic hypnosis,” Bulgakov explicitly links his Sophiology to Palamas’s thought.2 In his magnum opus, The Bride of the Lamb, Bulgakov argues that Gregory Palamas’s doctrine of energies “is essentially unfinished sophiology.”3 In Bulgakov’s estimation, Palamas’s energy-essence distinction

28

Bulgakov’s method and sources

correctly places the relationship of God-in-Godself to God-for-us at the center of his theology. Although Bulgakov did not consider himself a neopalamite thinker, Palamas provides Bulgakov with a theological warrant for his sophiological project.4 Sophiology clarifies the ambiguities in Palamas’s thought but also works out the implications of the relationship of God-inGodself to God-for-us for Mariology, angelology, Christology, Pneumatology, hagiography, eschatology, and ecclesiology. Palamas’s energy-essence distinction, in fact, provides an important insight into the first premise of Sophiology. God is immanent in God’s energy, yet transcendent, beyond any categorization in God’s essence.5 Bulgakov reinterprets Palamas’ essence-energy distinction and places Palamas’s thought within an antinomic context (i.e., he juxtapositions God’s essence and God’s energy in a dialectic that produces an antinomy). This move allowed him to make the essence-energy distinction philosophically defensible because, for Bulgakov, antinomy makes space for mystery within rational discourse: [Antinomy] testifies to the existence of a mystery beyond which human reason cannot penetrate. This mystery, nevertheless, is actualized and lived in religious experience. All fundamental dogmatic definitions are of this nature. It is futile to attempt to dispel or remove an antinomy.6 Within the context of religious experience, an antinomy is an indicator that points to the limitation of discursive reason to comprehend a divine truth.7 The aphorisms of “mystery” frequently used to express the mystery of Who God is, is the experience of this antinomy. Religious experience, particularly the religious experience of Palamas revealed in his hesychast practice, reveals that God is both transcendent and immanent to created beings. Bulgakov writes, we find a sophiological antinomy also in the doctrine of Gregory Palamas on the unknowability of the divine essence, ousia, and the knowability of the divine ‘energies,’ energeia. Here, the ‘energies’ are identical in nature with God and in this sense they are God, as well as the uncreated foundation of creation.8 Antinomy provides Bulgakov with a philosophical tool to express in a modern idiom that we cannot fully comprehend God whom we experience. How God is knowable and unknowable is an antinomy that Bulgakov explores in his Sophiology. Bulgakov reveals that this antinomy is comprised of three antinomies that are foundational for dogmatic theology: the theological antinomy, the cosmological antinomy, and the sophiological antinomy.9 The theological antinomy states that God is both the absolute, the divine nothing, but also the self-relation in Himself, the Holy Trinity.10 This expresses the distinction between kataphatic and apophatic theology, which Bulgakov interprets as mutually necessary. Thus, God is always known, yet

Bulgakov’s method and sources

29

unknown. The theological antinomy reveals a fundamental tenet of revelation. Revelation, according to Bulgakov, is a process where the unknown (the revealer) is made known (the revealer revealing itself) while remaining unknown. If the revealer were completely revealed in its revelation, this would not be revelation but knowledge, which would negate the need for faith.11 The cosmological antinomy explicates the theological antinomy, that God is “Absolute-Relative.”12 It states that while God, as the Holy Trinity, is complete fullness, immutable, and absolute, God is correlative to creation, for God created the world out of God’s love for creation. The sophiological antinomy expresses more clearly the cosmological antinomy, namely how God is relative and absolute in terms of God’s wisdom. While God reveals Godself in God’s wisdom, which is also God’s divine life and world, in eternity, “God creates the world by His Wisdom, and this Wisdom, constituting the divine foundation of the world.” God, therefore, abides in creation amidst time and space.13 God’s wisdom exists in Godself as the fullness of ideas, yet it exists in creation, in a germinal form. Together these three antinomies provide the basic outline of Bulgakov’s Sophiology. Sophia refers to God who is revealed to us; while at the same time, God transcends Sophia14 (theological antinomy). Sophia is Godself revealed. God as Sophia is, therefore, correlative with creation, yet God as Sophia remains immutable and eternal (cosmological antinomy). Since God as Sophia is united with creation, creation has a divine foundation that is divine wisdom (sophiological antinomy). God in this sense abides in creation, yet remains perfect and transcendent to creation. What follows for Bulgakov is that Sophia exists in a divine and creaturely state. Divine Sophia refers to God as revealed. Creaturely Sophia is synonymous with creation.15 Divine and creaturely Sophia are ontologically identical. What distinguishes them is the modality of their being.16 By this Bulgakov means that creaturely Sophia is divine Sophia submerged in nothing, or divine Sophia diminished of its fullness and glory.17 This diminishment of divine Sophia allows creation to differentiate itself from God and more importantly, initiates salvation history, which, like Solov’ev, ends in creation’s unity with God. Antinomy, as in Florensky, guards Bulgakov against the pantheistic claims of Solov’ev. Creaturely Sophia will always remain creaturely even though it will reunite in some sense with divine Sophia at the end of time. For Bulgakov, this event is nothing less than the Parousia when Jesus Christ returns to the world in his glory, which was diminished in his earthly life before his Ascension.18 Always perceptive to Scriptural emphasis on Christ’s second coming and appearance in glory (e.g., 1 Pet 4:13; 1 John 2:28) that is somehow manifested with “earthly concreteness” but different from the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus (e.g., Matt 28:18; John 20:19), Bulgakov concludes that the Scriptures intonate that creation will be glorified and will be able to bear the glorious coming of Jesus Christ at the end of time. There must be an ontological correlation between creation and God, and as Robert Slesinski neatly summarizes this fundamental correlation as the “principle

30

Bulgakov’s method and sources

linking and organizing world multiplicity – natura naturans [creaturely Sophia] in relation to natura naturata [divine Sophia].”19 The result is a further clarification of his Sophiology: divine Sophia refers to God’s triune self-revelation,20 while creaturely Sophia refers to the ability of creation to receive that revelation. Sophia is the means Bulgakov uses to express Godhumanhood.21 Creation is able to receive God’s revelation and to be united without confusion to God’s divine nature in the Incarnation because creation is in some way divine; God is able to incarnate and reveal Godself because God is in some way creaturely. Bulgakov relies on his theory of kenosis to further express how creaturely Sophia differentiates itself from divine Sophia.22 Kenosis is an important term for Bulgakov because it expresses God ad intra and God ad extra. Both creaturely and divine Sophia are not simply an expression of how God loves kenoticly. Bulgakov’s choice of “kenosis” as opposed to “agapē,” which is more widely used in the New Testament, to express God’s love in his minor and major trilogies, was intentional because kenosis denotes self-sacrifice with respect to the object of that sacrifice. The implication is kenosis requires a relationship with another subject before self-sacrificing love is possible.23 God’s kenotic love requires God in some sense to create humankind and creation, so as to have a subject capable of receiving God’s love. Bulgakov, however, notes that this is not so much an internal or external necessity but rather the function of God’s superabundant love that cannot help but flow from Godself to creation. God is an overabundant lover. In the context of Sophiology, the object of God’s sacrifice of love is creation. But creation is not simply the result of that sacrificial love, but rather it is itself a kenotic sacrifice or God’s nature divested of its divine prerogatives to allow for a created subject to receive God’s love. Creaturely Sophia is a kenotic sacrifice.24 Bulgakov interprets the doctrine creatio ex nihilio anew within this context. It functions as a metaphor to express the creative action of God’s creation of creation. To be created out of nothing is for God to be united to nothing, which is also expressed as divesting the divine self of its fullness and glory. His theological warrant for his kenotic theory is 1 John 4:8 (God is Love) and Philippians 2:6 (Christ was in the form of God, but did not deem equality with God). To love means to sacrifice oneself for another; therefore, God who loves from all eternity, sacrifices Godself from all eternity. In this context, the Incarnation, which is a kenosis of the Son (Phil 2:6), is one, albeit important, expression of God’s absolute, kenotic, self-depleting love.25 As divine Sophia in a perpetual state of kenosis until the Parousia, creaturely Sophia retains divine Sophia’s epistemic characteristic. It is an image of divine Sophia, and therefore creaturely Sophia includes, albeit unrealized, the images/logoi of divine Sophia. These images are imprinted on creaturely Sophia. Thus, “[t]he heavenly world is the ideal anticipation of the earthly, and the earthly is the real fulfillment of the heavenly.”26 Creaturely Sophia’s goal includes a type of incarnation of its logoi wherein created beings attain

Bulgakov’s method and sources

31

their likeness to these logoi. In this way, Bulgakov maintains that creaturely Sophia is an all-unity.27 Albeit in a germinal manner, creaturely Sophia includes all things as the image of divine Sophia. Thus Bulgakov muses that the glory to be revealed during the second coming is “already in the world without yet being manifested in it.”28 Divine Sophia is like a blueprint for creaturely Sophia. But there is an important distinction; the purview of creaturely Sophia is limited to humankind. Turning away from Solov’ev and other idealists and toward the creation narrative in the first chapter of the book of Genesis, Bulgakov stresses that as a creature created in the imago Dei, humankind is the head of creaturely Sophia and tasked with realizing the logoi of creaturely Sophia. This task follows from Bulgakov’s anthropology that includes the tenet that humankind is made in the image of God has a unique prerogative and mandate. To be made in the image of God is to be made in the image of the divine Son, the Logos, who contains the logoi or divine proto-images of created being. Humankind’s relationship with creaturely Sophia directly parallels the Son’s relationship with divine Sophia.29 Bestowed with the divine image of the Son, humankind’s vocation is to be no less than a “god by grace”30 or a “[guardian] of the universe.”31 In his summary of Sophia, Bulgakov writes: “Man, as the subject of humanity in its multiple hypostases, is the creaturely Sophia. Divine-humanity [Godhumanhood] is the hidden foundation of man’s creaturely humanity. Man is an emergent God-man.”32 The relationship between God and humankind will be discussed in the next chapter. It is sufficient to say now that humankind has the freedom to determine whether creaturely Sophia becomes divine-like or remains separated from God. Vouchsafing humankind’s autonomy from God and freedom also evidences that creaturely Sophia will always remain creaturely, even after the Parousia. Nevertheless, humankind is in need of God’s help to accomplish its task. After the original sin, it is only through Christ, who as the hypostatic union that united human and divine Sophia/nature “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation,” that the reunion of creaturely Sophia with divine Sophia is possible.33 Christ is not only the beginning but also the foundation of the realization of creaturely Sophia that humankind must accomplish. Bulgakov’s insistence on the juxtaposition of creaturely and divine Sophia and his antinomic claims about Sophia follows from his personalism.34 Bulgakov argued that his Sophiology as a natural development of their thought in part because he supplied what they lacked, a modern comprehension of human subjectivity. His modern stress on the human subject allows Bulgakov to express more definitively how theological claims premised on our encounter with God are possible without subsuming the human subject into Godself.35 As Mikhail Sergeev demonstrates, for Bulgakov, religious claims are a result of religious experience, a religious synthetic judgment. At the heart of Bulgakov’s antinomic method is the religious experience of God as

32

Bulgakov’s method and sources

both transcendent and immanent that language fails to express.36 God is personally and immediately present in creation, particularly in the sacraments, the scriptures, the natural world, and worship, yet God is also completely transcendent to the world. In other words, God is always infinitely more than what we experience, yet God is experienced, and it is this experience that is the basis of all theological and faith claims. Thus, the antinomy of Christian religious experience may only be approached from within the context of human subjectivity.37 Human subjectivity is axiomatic in his thought, and thus his Sophiology has been described by many as not theoretical but rather a “matter of experience.”38 Experientialism pervades Bulgakov’s ideas about Sophia. Experience reveals to him that God is a personal being, and in order to express God’s personhood, Bulgakov found an adequate analogy in human personality. His theological warrant for this is the doctrine that humankind was created in the imago Dei. Humankind provides an analogy for better understanding Who God is. He concludes that just as the human hypostatic self is not an abstraction, but rather a personal living being that is always relating itself to other hypostatic beings, so too is the Trinity. Abstraction for the sake of abstraction is a philosophical task, but not a task for theology. God is a person above abstraction. For this reason, as Nichols notes, Bulgakov is at variance with traditional Trinitarian theologies that appropriate abstract philosophical language to the Trinity.39 Bulgakov who was well aware of not only scholastic and patristic penchant to talk about God in terms of causality and appropriate Aristotelian metaphysics, attempts a ressourcement of sorts in terms of using biblical terms for God as theological referents. The operative terms he employs to speak about God’s substance are “Sophia (Wisdom)” and “glory,” not ousia. Not only are Sophia and glory used frequently in the Scriptures,40 but in the Christian tradition, Sophia and glory are associated with the divine hypostases, primarily the second person of the Trinity. The latter observation in conjunction with his stress that Sophia and glory are essential qualities of God led him to conclude that Sophia and glory are related to all three persons regarding their activity and essential being. To gain further insight into God’s personality, Bulgakov turns to German idealism, particularly Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s IchPhilosophie. Fichte’s philosophy of personhood offered him the tool to better explain divine subjectivity. After revising Fichte’s exclusion of natural self-determination,41 Bulgakov concludes that God is three personal “I’s,” which are consubstantial and united in their living/personal nature (i.e., God’s personality). This is best expressed by his neologism “Trihypostatic being.” In other words, God is an absolute personality; God is the ultimate personality that exhausts our insipid understanding of personality. God expresses perfectly within Godself the various modes of personality that would otherwise require multiple individuated persons to express. In this manner, “the Divine Person is consciousness of self (of me, of you, of him, of you) but also of the me outside of self.”42 God does not have three separate

Bulgakov’s method and sources

33

personalities, but rather a unique Trihypostatic personality expressed in the Trinity of persons.43 Since God is Love, this means that the divine person is, in reality, the “reciprocity of love eternally realized,”44 or, as Meerson puts it, a “ceaseless movement of divine selflessness in love.”45 God’s personal consciousness of triune self is inseparable from God’s nature, the content of this self-realization. In effect, Bulgakov corrects the abstractness of Fichte’s understanding of self-consciousness that failed to take into account the personalism of personality, particularly the passive aspect of personality (the given) as opposed to simply stressing the active aspect of personality (the creative). Given this personalism, his stress on experience, and use of biblical terminology, divine Sophia cannot be described as an abstract entity (i.e., simply ousia).46 Sophia is the concrete content of each divine personality, their “relational modality.” This is not all Bulgakov has to say about Sophia, and in fact, throughout his career, Bulgakov vacillates between different expressions as to what this means. For instance, in Unfading Light he expresses Sophia’s personality as a fourth hypostasis;47 however, he corrected this in 1925 and created the neologism as ipostasnost’ or hypostaticity to express this. Although he retains his language in his later works, he stresses that Sophia is “supremely alive life”48 that possesses personality as feminine passivity or a self-surrendering love.49 It is clear that Bulgakov struggles with how to express the passive personality of God’s nature. This struggle to express Sophia pervades his theological writings in his theological period. His book, Sophia: The Wisdom of God, which was authored as a succinct, apologetic text authored by Bulgakov to defend his Sophiology from claims of heresy, is no exception to this struggle. In it, particularly Bulgakov’s chapter on “Divine Sophia in the Holy Trinity,” he describes Sophia as the one life in common between the three persons of the Trinity.50 Nevertheless, Bulgakov’s stress on the livlieness of God’s Sophia or “Sophia-ousia” served his Trinitarian theology as it helped guarantee the communication of personal character from one person to another in the inner life of the Trinity. This personal communication is, of course, the basis for human personality, which was in many ways the impetus of his theology on this matter. Sophia is the characterizing power of each hypostasis.51 Sophia is the “living, and, therefore, loving substance, ground, and “principle.”52 However, Bulgakov insists that Sophia is not a person, but “love in a special un-hypostatic embodiment.”53 Clearly defining Sophia is not possible, as we will inevitably encounter the sophiological antinomies. For this reason, in that same book, Bulgakov unapologetically states that Sophia cannot be defined more than the mere common possession of the persons of the Trinity.54 Sophia is simply the living nature of God. Nevertheless, Bulgakov’s Sophiology is an extended meditation on God’s perfect love provides an analogy that may shed light on what Sophia is. If we take 1 John 4:8 as our starting point with the Judeo-Christian idea that God is perfect in all that God is and does, then it follows that God is perfect love. “God is love” means that God is love in every sense of the word, including

34

Bulgakov’s method and sources

love of self, albeit without the selfishness associated with human self-love. We can say that God loves Godself (i.e., the persons of the Trinity love one another and Sophia) and that Godself loves God (i.e., Sophia loves God).55 However, since the latter is not a center of consciousness as a hypostasis, this love must be expressed impersonally. As opposed to the hypostases that hypostatize Sophia, which involves some form of taking from Sophia, Sophia gives up/yields Herself to these hypostases. Expressed within the traditional gender binary, Sophia is passive towards the hypostases; thus, she loves in a feminine manner. Bulgakov’s stress on Sophia’s feminine love finds supports in the biblical portrayal of Sophia as Lady Wisdom, who is largely passive in relation to God. Nevertheless, by attributing personality to Sophia, Bulgakov borders on the absurd, for, in effect, he argues that Sophia is an impersonal personality, which is a logical impossibility. Perhaps what we find here is an example of Bulgakov’s antinomic methodology, where, as Arjkovsky describes, Bulgakov leaves the “sphere of rational knowledge in order to speak in symbolic terms.”56 Sophia expresses biblically God’s relationship to the world. However, God as Sophia is not solely the economic Trinity, but rather both the economic and immanent Trinity. Bulgakov attributes to each of the hypostases that hypostatize Sophia a distinctive attribute. To the Father he attributes the absolute, who is unknown in Godself. The Father is only revealed indirectly through the Son and the Holy Spirit. Although we will encounter antinomy with respect to the Father’s decision to reveal Himself in the Son and Holy Spirit, when this revelation occurs this is the beginning of divine and creaturely Sophia. The Father reveals Himself in the “bihypostatic unity” of the Son and the Holy Spirit.57 The Son hypostatizes Sophia or God the Father’s content; hence He is the image of the Father. The Holy Spirit also hypostatizes Sophia; however, the Holy Spirit does not reveal the Father but rather manifests the revelation and glory of the Father. Theological dialectics Bulgakov is a historically minded theologian.58 Revelation is not a dead letter passed down from generation to generation but rather a dynamic divine-human process. As a divine-human process, it entails the ambiguity and tension of human existence, which will at times involve dialogue and virulent debate. As evidenced in Bulgakov’s treatment of the christological debates that resulted in the first four ecumenical councils, in The Lamb of God, Bulgakov stresses that theological debate is a necessary part of the Church’s dogmatic history. Dialectics demonstrate the human side of the process of revelation, namely humankind’s attempt, albeit at times quite feeble, to comprehend God. The upshot of this is that Bulgakov recasts the villains of Church history in a new light. Although the heretics reached an incorrect conclusion, they were not only a catalyst for a dogmatic statement, but they represent one side of the truth contained in a dogma.59 On

Bulgakov’s method and sources

35

the heretics repudiated by the seven great ecumenical councils, their heresy is not a denial of truth per se, but rather their inability to transcend the dialectic which resulted in their one-sidedness and heresy. What they fail to do is what the Church accomplishes in its conciliar dogmatic teaching, namely a synthesis between their position and the position of their opponent. The dogmas of the Church incorporated, yet transcend that dialectic in its synthetic teaching. The Council of Chalcedon is a case in point because the council Father’s teaching on the hypostatic union is not strictly a denial of Alexandrian theology but a synthesis of the Alexandrian theology with the Antiochene theology.60 This synthesis does not by any means exhaust the mystery of the hypostatic union because the Chalcedonian formula involves an antinomy between the divine and human nature coexisting within the divine Son that cannot be dissolved. His Mariology appropriates this dialectical reading of Church history.61 In The Burning Bush, Bulgakov applies this methodology to his interpretation of the events that resulted in Council of Ephesus’s christological statement that Mary is “Theotokos.” In this instance, however, what is important to him is not the historical dialectic between Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria that the council fathers appropriate in their dogmatic synthesis, but a new dialectic that will draw out the implication of the dogma of Theotokos for the Orthodox faithful. His dialectic juxtaposes Nestorius to the teaching of the Council of Ephesus. From this juxtaposition, he arrives at a new synthesis that Mary is the pneumatophoric hypostasis. His rationale for setting up this dialectic is the continued presence of Nestorianism in the Church. The conciliar teaching of the Council of Ephesus did not effectively address Nestorian Christology. Although Nestorius was defeated, his position that Mary is Christotokos has disseminated itself among Orthodox believers. Bulgakov mentions no names, but Bulgakov argues that there is a thinly veiled Nestorianism that is apparent in the common misunderstanding that the begetting of the Son in Mary was an external operation whereby “flesh is formed in Mary’s womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, and in that flesh the that dwelled as a soul.”62 Mary in this sense is a completely passive vessel which provides only human flesh to Christ. In this interpretation, Mary is not the Mother of God but the Mother of Christ’s humanity, the Christokos. The problem is that even though the Church declares that Mary is the Theotokos, it has not provided a clear expression of what that means for Mary, and therefore it has not addressed this heresy. To the credit of the council fathers, which Bulgakov duly notes, the Council of Ephesus declared the Theotokos on christological, not mariological grounds. For the council fathers, the importance of the dogma of the Theotokos is that it safeguards an orthodox interpretation of the hypostatic union of Christ. Since Christ united the divine and human natures hypostatically, to deny that Mary is Mother of his divinity is tantamount to a denial of the hypostatic union,63 as it implies that Christ has two persons or at least diminishes the humanity of Jesus Christ.

36

Bulgakov’s method and sources

Given these facts, Bulgakov finds his Mariology warranted and apropos. His doctrine of the pneumatophoric hypostasis is his attempt to purge Nestorianism from Orthodoxy.64 However, Bulgakov does not demonize Nestorius.65 Following his dialectical reading of historical theology, Nestorius is an important person who raises a critical question: “How in actual fact can Mary, a human being, become and be called Theotokos?”66 If “like can beget only like,”67 then either Mary must be divine to be Theotokos or Mary is the Christokos because she is merely human. Bulgakov agrees with Nestorius’s logic: Mary can only be called Theotokos if she is the material cause, not simply the instrumental cause of the hypostatic union. Since like can only know like and Mary is the Theotokos, then Mary must somehow share in God’s divinity. Mary must be something more than merely a human mother, yet Mary is always a human being, remaining within creaturely Sophia. Bulgakov looks to the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit to shed light on Nestorius’s quandary, and he argues that it is precisely the motherhood of the Holy Spirit that Mary appropriates that makes it possible for her to truly be the Mother of God, but remain a creature. Bulgakov advocates a form of adoptionism: Mary was not the Theotokos from her birth, but rather at her Annunciation he is deified and adopted by the Holy Spirit. Mary is incorporated into the motherhood or economic mission of the Holy Spirit, Who imbues Mary with the ability to be the Mother of God. The Holy Spirit deifies her Motherhood, allowing her to fully and actively participate in the Incarnation. The maternal likeness that Mary appropriates in becoming the Theotokos is none other than the motherhood of the Holy Spirit, and Bulgakov’s Mariology develops the Ephesus’s dogma of divine motherhood: if Mary gives her human nature to Jesus and has no role in the divine life-giving, maternal action of the Holy Spirit, then Ephesus is effectively refuted. Mary would only be Christotokos. It is not sufficient to say that Mary is the mother of the hypostatic union without defining how she participates in the actual union of the human and divine natures in the divine hypostasis of the Son. The only alternative he finds is his synthetic doctrine of the pneumatophoric hypostasis, which will be discussed below.68 Biblical and liturgical hermeneutic Although Bulgakov is a dialectical thinker, dialectics are not the exclusive method he employs. With regard to his Mariology, much of his ideas are derived from his biblical and liturgical hermeneutics. His central hermeneutical principle is lex orandi lex credendi.69 What is prayed and experienced in the life of Orthodox believers forms the basis for his insight on Church doctrine. Therefore, for Bulgakov, the official worship of the Church has a “commanding and authoritative significance for the Theologian.”70 His stress on the importance of the liturgy has led some, like Louth, to argue that he is a liturgical theologian, albeit only in the sense as one who “writes out of the liturgy.”71 Bulgakov’s predilection for the liturgy is consonant

Bulgakov’s method and sources

37

with his insistence that theology’s primary task is to express the life and experience of the Church. According to Bulgakov, a theologian should not simply be an academic, but one who is a committed Christian that actively participates in the liturgical rites. Bulgakov writes “the altar and the theologian’s cell – his workspace – must be conjoined. The deepest origins of the theologian’s inspiration must be nourished from the altar.”72 This statement is by no means a radical idea. It is consistent with the Orthodox ethos that has stressed life of Orthodoxy, which preeminently expressed in the celebration of the Eucharist, as opposed to theological formulas. In his letter “From the Author” in The Burning Bush, he explicitly states that the liturgy is the primary source for his Mariology. This is because the liturgy is the prayer of the Church. For Bulgakov, the liturgy must nourish theological genius.73 Bulgakov’s point is very simple: on theological issues where there is ambiguity, such as the sinlessness of the Mother of God, an Orthodox theologian must look to Orthodoxy’s robust liturgical celebrations, as the liturgy is the living embodiment of the Church, the interaction between God and humankind. However, to do this properly requires participation in the liturgy.74 Nevertheless, Bulgakov’s theology does not simply restate the liturgy. As Alexander I. Negrov demonstrates, Bulgakov developed a sophisticated hermeneutical approach to the Scriptures and tradition that guides his theology. I mention tradition and not the liturgy because, for Bulgakov, the liturgy is tradition but tradition is not exhausted by the liturgy. Thus, the teachings of the ecumenical councils, the Church Fathers, and magisterial teachings of the Orthodox bishops are all sources of tradition. However, the liturgy has a commanding and primary significance.75 Bulgakov states this explicitly: I shall not exaggerate if I say that out of various forms of tradition, liturgical texts have the most authority, as compared to other sources . . . liturgical witness has, as a matter of fact, a binding authority, no less that the direct indications in Holy Scriptures.76 And again, Bulgakov writes “The Infallibility of the Church is manifested in its life of prayer, Divine Worship.”77 In particular, at least in regard to Mariology, the liturgy is a central authority and the primary source for his theological inspiration about Mary.78 Liturgy, however, for Bulgakov, includes not simply the liturgical texts but the entire liturgical experience that is expressed in the feast days, iconography, and church architecture. Icons were of particular importance to his theology. For a non-Orthodox reader, this may seem strange or perhaps apropos given the resurgence, particularly, in Catholic theological communities of theological aesthetics. However, for Orthodox Christians, outside the Eucharist, icons are the locus of the sacred.79 Bulgakov’s use of icons as sources for theology is not novel. What is novel is the extent to which he uses them and the selection of particular icons that orient his theological thought. Thus, the icon of the Deeis80 and the position of the Marian icon on the icon screen within in the sanctuary

38

Bulgakov’s method and sources

of the Orthodox Church hold a particular importance in his thought, and they reveal that it is not only the content of prayer that is encompassed in lex orandi, but also how that prayer is carried out in art, devotion, and placement within the Church structure. However, the tradition as expressed in the liturgy is not a second source of revelation; it is intimately connected with the Sacred Scriptures. The liturgy and the Scriptures are not juxtaposed in Bulgakov’s thought. The liturgy provides Bulgakov with a tool to correctly interpret the Scriptures. The liturgy offers a hermeneutical key to acquire the mind of the Church. Take for instance the vespers for the feast of the Annunciation (March 25). This service includes five readings: Genesis 28:10–17 (i.e., Jacob’s ladder); Ezekiel 43:27–44 (i.e., the closed gate of the Jerusalem Temple that only the Prince may pass through); Proverbs 9:1–11, “Wisdom has built her house”; Exodus 3:1–8 (i.e., the Burning Bush); Proverbs 8:22–30 (i.e., Wisdom’s eternity). All these verses play a major role in his Mariology. The readings from Proverbs are the basis for his Mary-Sophia exegesis. Mary is the manifestation of Sophia on earth; she is the house of wisdom. Moreover, her place has been prepared by God from all eternity. At the same time, she is the ladder between heaven and earth (Gen 28:10–17), who remained a perpetual virgin (Ezek 43:27–44). She is a creature who retains her creatureliness despite her deification (Ex 3:1–8). The inclusion of Hebrews 2:11–18, which explains why God became human, into the liturgy of the Annunciation suggests that Christ’s humanity is Mary’s humanity. This is an important point that Bulgakov emphasizes in The Burning Bush. Bulgakov, preempting contemporary Orthodox and Catholic conceptions of Sacred Tradition, calls Sacred Tradition the “living tradition” of the Church.81 By living tradition, Bulgakov means that it is an ecclesialinterpretive tradition of the Scriptures through which the Church applies the Scriptures to contemporary time. It is the continual expression of the life of the Church, which proceeds from the Church’s direct encounter with God at the altar.82 Revelation is not merely the written text of Scripture, but rather an active relationship between God and humankind.83 Within this relational approach to revelation, the Scriptures have a central place. If tradition is the life of the Church, then Scripture is the life of tradition.84 The Scriptures give a written witness to the direct encounter with God as expressed in the words of Jesus, the prophets, and the saints. To draw from Protestant-Catholic theological language, we might express his view as finding the Scriptures formally sufficient. Scripture provides the central teachings of the faith, but it is neither self-revealing nor contains all the meaning of revelation explicitly. The material sufficiency of revelation is supplied by the collective, ongoing experience of the Church, (i.e., living tradition),85 which is best expressed in the liturgy. Therefore, “tradition creates a more full and complete picture as to what sacred text really means.”86 Tradition can foster an experience whereby we gain direct access to the mind of the biblical authors through the Holy Spirit, and therefore we gain a direct understanding of what the Bible

Bulgakov’s method and sources

39

means in a contemporary setting. In practice, tradition checks against incorrect interpretations of Scripture. Given his collegial understanding of tradition, the interpretation of the Bible must involve the Church as a whole, not simply experts or an aggregate of individuals.87 Thus Bulgakov insists that revelation is bestowed not on an individual, but on “man in the all-inclusive sense, and thus on the whole of mankind through him,” and although this revelation is delimited by space and time, it has an eternal value insofar as it retains its significance for humanity through the living tradition of the Church.88 In practice, his view of revelation entails that there are at least two sources of revelation that we may use when approaching contemporary questions about theology. Thus, when he approaches the question of Mary’s sinlessness that he finds decidedly underdeveloped in Orthodoxy, he looks to both the liturgy and Sacred Scripture as sources for theology. However, since Sacred Scripture is the formal source of revelation, he regularly makes recourse to the Sacred Scriptures to support his conclusions that are primarily derived from the liturgy. Interestingly, as a historically minded theologian, Bulgakov incorporates historical-critical scholarship into his theology. For Bulgakov, biblical scholarship is valuable for theology only in as much as it demonstrates the continuity of tradition and Scripture since the Bible is written tradition.89 Additionally, it prevents the Scriptures from becoming antiquated or a “dead letter” or “equal to the Word of God.”90 However, his usage of biblical criticism is piecemeal, as he rarely employs them in his theological writings. The same is true for historical criticisms of the liturgical texts he uses. His reaction to the biblical scholarship of his day supplies us with his rationale for his reticence on historical-critical scholarship. Although Bulgakov rarely refers to particular scholars,91 he takes issue with biblical scholarship that oversteps its bounds by making theological claims.92 For Bulgakov, the role of application of the historical critical method in biblical studies is to produce scholarship that elucidates how the biblical authors use language and culture to express what the author has deemed as divine truth. The biblical scholar’s use of the scientific method and textual and historical criticisms delimits their purview, and at best their scholarship results in historical probabilities that an event did or did not occur. Biblical scholarship provides no basis to judge faith claims because it lacks the necessary element to do so: faith. Judgments made outside the faith community will result in overly rationalistic and simplified claims that fail to grasp the divine-human process of revelation. Nevertheless, their research provides valuable information for theologians that theologians should employ this scholarship as a tool, so as to better understand the cultural conditioning of the Scriptures, and destroy “barriers which hinder us in our understanding of the Word of God.”93 These barriers result from a lack of coordination between the historical images present in the Scriptures and the modern consciousness of humankind.94

40

Bulgakov’s method and sources

Historical studies are a tool for the theologian. When scholarship conflicts with the truths of worship, the scholarship will lose out since its scope is limited to natural, historical science. Bulgakov, therefore, has no qualms about making axiomatic historically dubious traditions, such as the tradition that Mary was a temple virgin. Not only is Scripture silent about this event, but determining the historicity of the event is problematic. After all, the earliest attestation of this event is the non-canonical gospel, Proto-Evangelium of James (circa second century CE). To date, there is no archeological evidence or explicit biblical attestation that the cult of virgins existed at or near the temple in Jerusalem.95 Bulgakov is not concerned with the historical improbability that this temple cult existed because this tradition is a liturgical feast. The liturgy reveals the truth, and therefore there is no doubt that Mary was a temple virgin in her youth. Historical scholarship plays an important role in one of the most important feasts that influence his Mariology, the Dormition.96 As Bulgakov notes, historical scholarship demonstrates not only the late date of its celebration (i.e., around the fourth century) but the mythical elements present in the earliest accounts of the Dormition. According to Bulgakov, for a rationalist, these facts give enough warrant to adduce that Mary did not ascend into heaven as the tradition iterates. For the believer, however, the late date of scholarship and the legendary language is indicative of the miraculous aspect of this event and God’s providence. Bulgakov writes “the language of legend alone is appropriate” to express this event.97 Because human language is incapable of expressing supernatural events, human beings cannot record these events without the use of legend and myth. Bulgakov interprets the three centuries of silence on this topic as an example of the “dispensation of Providence.” God judged that the Church was not yet ready for this truth to be revealed until the fourth century. Note that Bulgakov does not reject the scholarship, but he uses it as a tool to further explicate the supernatural aspect of the Dormition. The scholarship provides Bulgakov here with insight into not only divine providence but the importance of symbolism and legend to express miraculous events. Liturgical tradition Given his biblical hermeneutics that stresses the role of the liturgy in the interpretation of the Scriptures and the paucity of direct references to Mary in the Bible, Bulgakov relies heavily on the liturgical tradition for his Mariology.98 The title of his mariological work The Burning Bush is indicative of this. The Burning Bush is an icon of Mary that speaks to her sinlessness and glory, which are two critical themes in Bulgakov’s work.99 Moreover, in this text, he not only frequently quotes from the liturgy, but provides two appendices that include quotations from various liturgical celebrations in support of his conclusions. The appendices function as proof texts for Bulgakov’s two main themes in the body of this work: Mary’s sinlessness

Bulgakov’s method and sources

41

without being immaculately conceived (chapters 1–3) and Mary’s glorified existence (chapter 4). Appendix one corresponds to the first theme, and appendix two corresponds to the second. Regarding Mary’s sinlessness without the Immaculate Conception, Bulgakov argues that the liturgy provides an overwhelming witness in support of this.100 Within appendix one, the liturgical services quoted describe Mary as such: “Holy of Holies,” “spotless,” and a “pure one.” Although none of the liturgical verses address the Immaculate Conception, based on his argumentation, it is clear that they were chosen to provide support for an alternative expression of Mary’s sinlessness. The alternative explanation Bulgakov offers to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception stresses not only her active, personal accomplishment, but also the importance of Christ’s genealogy and the righteousness of her ancestors.101 On the former point, his quotation from the liturgy of Entrance into the Temple is important because this feast celebrates Mary’s maturation into the divine temple; this entails Mary’s activity as opposed to her passivity.102 On the latter point, Bulgakov’s excerpts from The Sunday of the Holy Ancestors and The Conception of St. Anne when she conceived the most holy Theotokos highlight the connection between Mary and her ancestors. Two hymns, in particular, demonstrate this: “the saints praise you in glory, because from their seed is a blessed fruit, she who bore you without seed” (The Sunday of the Holy Ancestors) and “[t]he prophetic words are now fulfilled, for the mountain of the holy ones is firmly established in the womb” (Conception of St. Anne).103 The second appendix refers to Mary’s glorification in the context of her Dormition. Her glorification is important to Bulgakov because it points to the completion of the Mother of God’s life and her role in heaven as an intercessor for humanity. Ultimately, he argues that Mary in her glorification fully participates in her vocation as the revelation of the Holy Spirit. The verses in appendix two are appropriately taken from the Akhathist of the Dormition of the Theotokos, the most important liturgical text on the Dormition of Mary. In the Akhathist, although there is no mention of Mary as the pneumatophoric hypostasis, the implication is there given his argumentation in Chapter 4 of the Burning Bush; the verses he provides stress that Mary is raised by the “all-active Spirit of God,” that she “co-reigns” with the Son, and that she intercedes for us.104 Although the liturgical verse “more honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim” is not mentioned in either appendix, it is quoted fourteen times in The Burning Bush. This is one of the most important liturgical verses that Bulgakov uses. The hymn begins Bulgakov’s discussion with Mary as a warning to his readers of the impossibility to express fully the Orthodox veneration of Mary that is experienced and practiced by Orthodox believers.105 Within the text itself, it is important to him because it points to Mary’s exalted place in heaven after her glorification. Mary is even higher than the highest choirs of angels, which for Bulgakov means that Mary is glorified beyond them not only in degree but

42

Bulgakov’s method and sources

in essence. Given the fact that angels stand as prototypes of humankind, this verse also expresses Mary’s transcendent place in humanity, providing a liturgical warrant for his speculations about Mary in relation to both the angelic world, redeemed humanity, and Sophia. This will be discussed in Chapter 5. Nevertheless, Bulgakov’s reliance on the liturgy is not limited to The Burning Bush as it is used throughout his theological writings. The Bride of the Lamb, his last and greatest work in addition to repeating arguments from The Burning Bush, Bulgakov focuses on Mary’s role in the last judgment. In this text, he fills the gap as to silence on the role of Mary in the last judgment by looking to Orthodox iconography, particularly the icon of the Last Judgment and her role therein. He concludes that Mary will be involved in the final judgment. Scripture Although, according to Bulgakov, there are three levels of biblical interpretation, the literal,106 the allegorical, and the mystical, the allegorical and mystical interpretations dominate his theology of Mary in his major and minor trilogies. Whereas an allegorical interpretation reveals the meaning of a passage that is implicit, the mystical interpretation refers to a meaning that is only revealed with God’s help. Both methods confirm the teaching of the Church as expressed in its tradition or liturgy that require God’s assistance to truly understand the role and place of Mary in salvation history. An example of his allegorical method is his interpretation of Mary’s fiat (Luke 1:38).107 The hidden meaning of this verse is that Mary is personally sinless, which is derived from the tradition. According to Bulgakov, it stands to reason that a sinful person could not give his/her fiat or complete expression of assent to God’s will; therefore, Mary must be sinless or Luke 1:38 is an error, which is not possible given Bulgakov’s view that the Bible is infallible. Once he establishes that Mary could not have given her fiat and become the Theotokos unless she achieved an exceptional state of holiness without the manifestation of personal sin, this verse functions as an interpretive tool to biblically base his speculations regarding Mary’s relationship to the Holy Spirit as well as Mary’s role in her salvation. The verse confirms Bulgakov’s doctrine of synergy,108 which stresses that God does not compel, but always allows for human freedom and responsibility.109 Freewill is crucial to Bulgakov’s sophiological undertaking because Sophia is the context in which human freedom is possible. In this account, Mary in her fiat is the perfect expression of human cooperation with God.110 Mary not only chooses rightly but does so without any internal or external coercion. Once Bulgakov establishes Mary’s sinlessness and freedom, he turns to other examples of personally sinless people to understand what this means. Christ, who is sinless by virtue of his Incarnation, is a case in point. Bulgakov allegorically interprets Romans 8:3 that Christ appeared in “the likeness of the flesh of sin” as a basis for his explanation of Mary’s personal sinless.111

Bulgakov’s method and sources

43

His argument is that all sin is not the same. Christ, who is sinless as God, cannot personally sin, thus to take upon himself “the likeness of the flesh of sin” is none other than to take upon himself the effect of the original sin or the infirmity of nature associated with the original sin.112 Sin taints Mary in as much as she suffers from the infirmity of nature. Unlike her Son, it is natural to her as opposed to something that she assumes by her free will. Bulgakov continues this allegorical interpretation of Christological verses on Christ’s temptation (Cf. Heb 4.15; Heb 2:18), death,113 royal glorification,114 and relationship to Adam and Eve.115 This allegorical methodology continues on Mary’s relationship with the Holy Spirit. Based on these passages: Luke 3:22 (the Holy Spirit’s manifestation as a dove), Acts 2:3 (the Holy Spirit’s manifestation as fiery tongues), Genesis 22:11–15 (the Holy Spirit’s manifestation in the form of an angel), Acts 2:38 (the Holy Spirit’s manifestation as gifts), and John 16:13–15 (the Holy Spirit continues Christ’s work), Bulgakov defines the Holy Spirit’s personality and function in the Bible. Then he applies the activity of the Holy Spirit, which is to manifest the Son, to the Holy Spirit’s relationship to Mary. Mary is the means through whom the Holy Spirit manifests the Son. A good example of his mystical interpretive method is his sophianic interpretation of Mary. Unlike his allegorical methods, these interpretations are not implicit, nor can they be deduced, but rather they are strictly the result of the Church’s worship. The arguments tend to be based on authority as opposed to rationality. Wisdom 9.1, “Wisdom has built herself a house and established seven pillars,” is an important verse Bulgakov uses. Bulgakov is clear that the association of this verse with Mary is a result of Russian liturgical worship.116 Particularly, it reflects the icons of Sophia in the churches dedicated to Holy Wisdom in Kiev and Novgorod. Bulgakov argues that the Holy Spirit is wisdom and Mary is the house in whom the Holy Spirit dwells.117 This Mary-Sophia reading continues in his exegesis of sister-bride imagery in the Song of Songs (Cf. Song 1.8–16; 2.2, 10; 3.6, 4; 4.3–9)118 that he extends to bridal imagery in the New Testament: if Mary, as Sophia, is the Bride of God in the Old Testament, then she is also the Bride of Christ in the New Testament.119 Because these verses are traditionally interpreted allegorically to refer to the relationship of Christ to the Church, they provide Bulgakov with a biblical foundation for his ecclesiological interpretation of Mary. She is the image of every soul in relationship to God as becoming a part of the Church, in the process of ecclesialization.120 His mystical interpretation continues in his exegesis of Luke 7:35 “wisdom is justified in her children” that confirms this sophiological interpretation of Mary.121 Mary is the first creaturely hypostasis to hypostatize creaturely Sophia; she is the first creature to be completely deified in soul and body, and thus she is united with God by grace. In other words, Wisdom is justified in Mary because she accomplishes the goal of creaturely Sophia: to be united to divine Sophia so that in creaturely Sophia “God already is ‘all in all’” (1 Cor 15:28). More on this will be said in Chapter 5.

44

Bulgakov’s method and sources

Conclusion In this chapter, I have provided an overview of Bulgakov’s Sophiology and methodology. This chapter has provided a framework to understand some of his more difficult ideas such as his theology of the Trinitarian image of humankind and the Holy Spirit’s relation to humankind that will be discussed in the next chapters. Even though Bulgakov is an Orthodox theologian, who is committed to the Orthodox tradition, his Sophiology and methodology places his thoughts in direct contrast with many of the Church Fathers and therefore many of his contemporaries who stress that Orthodox theology is patristic theology. Bulgakov’s goal is not to create a new dogma, but rather to engage Orthodoxy with the modern world. Before we turn to our discussion of the Bulgakov’s bold ideas, we must first address his predecessors that directly influenced his Mariology.

Notes 1 Cf. Bulgakov, BB, pp. 117–156. 2 Cf. Bulgakov, “Hypostasis and Hypostaticity,” pp. 23–24. Although Bulgakov introduced Palamas to the West, his attempt to link Sophiology to Palamas’s doctrine of the divine energy was not well-received. Basil Krivoshein’s influential study of Gregory Palamas, to which Vladimir Lossky and John Meyendorff frequently reference in their treatment of Palamas, provides one of the earliest rejections of Bulgakov’s attempt to link Sophiology to Palamas. Albeit he does not provide a systematic account of their dissimilarity, he points to two key features of Sophiology that Palamas’s account of the divine energy lacks: the hypostatic character of Sophia and the passivity of Sophia. (Basil Krivoshein, “The Ascetic and Theological Teaching of Gregory Palamas” in The Eastern Churches Quarterly: Index-Vol III 1938–9, Edited by Dom Bede Winslow, (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1969), p. 213, n. 69.) 3 Bulgakov, BL, p. 18. 4 Cf. Bulgakov, BB, pp. 138, 156, 180, n. 16. 5 For Palamas, the divine energy is grace. It is also a world-creating power and a distinction within the Godhead. (Cf. Gregory Palamas, The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, Translated by Robert E. Sinkewicz, (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1988), pp. 75, 171.) Nevertheless, even though we encounter God in God’s energy, God-in-Himself transcends these energies. Williams in her recent study of Palamas suggests that Palamas’s doctrine expresses what contemporary theologians call the immanent and economic Trinity. (A. N. Williams, The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 151.) 6 Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 77. 7 Bulgakov is an antinomic thinker. His usage of antinomy is not limited to the three mentioned antinomies. Within his major theological works, Bulgakov employs this term explicitly when explicating these doctrines: hypostatic union (Bulgakov, LG, p. 34), human freedom, (Bulgakov, BL, p. 134), eschatology, (Bulgakov, BL, p. 381), pre-eternal place of Christ, and the Theotokos in eternity (Bulgakov, BB, p. 128). 8 Cf. Bulgakov, Icons and the Name of God, Endnote 47, Location 2395 of 2657. 9 The clearest example that illustrates his antinomic method is his interpretation of dogma of the Trinity. The Trinity rests on the antinomy between God as one

Bulgakov’s method and sources

10 11 12 13 14

15

16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27

45

nature and God as three persons. Reason can express that God is one and that God is three; however, reason cannot express this conjointly: God is both one and three. To collapse this dogma into one of its premises (e.g., God is one or God is three) amounts to heresy. His essay “The Icons and Its Veneration (A Dogmatic Essay)” provides the clearest expression of these antinomies. See the recent English translation found in Bulgakov, Icons and the Name of God, Ch. 2, Location 379 of 2657. Ibid., Ch. 2, Location 525 of 2657. Ibid., Ch. 2, Location 425 of 2657. Gallaher, “There Is Freedom,” p. 10. This is precisely what Palamas meant in his emphasis that God is the divine energy, yet God-in-Himself transcends divine energy. The cosmological and sophiological antinomy further expresses Palamas’s thought; in particular Palamas’s insistence that while transcending the world, God is God’s energy that permeates the world. Gallaher argues that Bulgakov undermines his antinomic method because he ultimately collapses the antinomy into one of its theses (Gallaher, “There Is Freedom,” p. 16). There is some truth here; yet, we ought to be cautious of this conclusion since Bulgakov uses antinomies to demarcate the boundaries of his theological thought. His point is that we can only point to an antinomy; we cannot logically comprehend it. Antinomy gives him a theological license, especially as an Orthodox theologian, to express kataphatically what is generally left obscure due to the apophatic emphasis in Orthodox theology. How successful he is at this and whether or not his antinomic thought, which is basically kataphatic theology tempered by apophatism, is effective at representing Orthodoxy remains to be seen. However, as of 2017, his thought has not had any major influence on Orthodox theologians. Bulgakov, BL, p. 60. Ibid., p. 63. Cf. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 35. Bulgakov, BL, p. 399. Robert Slesinski, “Bulgakov’s Sophiological Conception of Creation,” (Orientalia Christiana Periodica 1 (2008): pp. 443–454), p. 453. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 50. This is the nature of Godhumanhood and his Sophiology that “[m]an as having God’s image is godlike, and God as having His image in man is manlike.” (Sergius N. Bulgakov, Social Teaching in Modern Russian Orthodox Theology: The Twentieth Annual Hale Memorial Sermon, (Evanston, IL: Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, 1934), p. 13.) For an important study of Bulgakov’s theology of kenosis, see Nadejda Gorodetzky, The Humiliated Christ in Modern Russian Thought, (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1938). Cf. Johannes Miroslav Oravecz, God as Love: The Concept and Spiritual Aspects of Agapē in Modern Russian Religious Thought, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014), p. 322. Bulgakov, LG, p. 130. Kenosis for Bulgakov not only extends to God ad extra but to God’s inner Trinitarian life. The processions of each person of the Trinity are themselves kenotic acts that involve self-sacrifice (Gorodetzky, p. 162). Bulgakov, JL, p. 67. “[The] unity of the world is possible thanks to the presence in the world of its ideal foundation – created Sophia. ‘The world’s soul, which embraces everything, is the unifying center of the world.’” This is “all-unity.” (S. V. Mosolova, “Sophiology: A Human Reading of the Book of God,” (Russian Studies in Philosophy 33 (Spring 1995): pp. 49–61), p. 57.)

46 28 29 30 31 32 33

34

35

36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Bulgakov’s method and sources Bulgakov, BL, p. 400. Nicholas, p. 42. Bulgakov, BB, p. 21. Ibid., p. 20. (Cf. Gen 1:28; Ps 82.6; Jn 10.34–35.) Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Appendix 1: Sophia” in Variable Reading in Russian Philosophy No 4: Orthodoxy and Modern Society, Edited by Robert Bird, pp. 51–54, (Hartford, CT: The Variable Press, 1995), p. 53. The Incarnation provides Bulgakov with his ultimate justification for his Sophiology and doctrine of Godhumanhood. He writes, “[s]uch a union de facto testifies to the likeness in linage between the two natures, the divine and the human, or – which is the same thing – between the divine and the creaturely Sophia, for they are compatible in the same life of the one Hypostasis of the Logos. The complete congruity and correlatedness of the two natures, which can be so united with the God-man, is thus fully confirmed.” (Bulgakov, “Appendix 1,” p. 52.) Bulgakov’s point is simple: the hypostatic union of the second person of the Trinity entails the ability of God to become human and by the same token the ability of humankind to receive God. In this way, Bulgakov is attempting to positively develop Chalcedon’s teaching on the hypostatic union. Incarnation points to a likeness between the divine and human nature, which is at the heart of Bulgakov’s Sophiology. (Cf. Bulgakov, “Appendix 1,” p. 52.) Christ is the ultimate revelation of divine-humanity. We all participate in Christ’s divine-humanity, which is also the Church, or the Body of Christ. For an excellent study of Christ’s role in Sophia see Chapter 6 of Nichols’ Wisdom from Above. Take for instance his book Jacob’s Ladder, which begins his angelology with a reflection on his own experience with his guardian angel. Experience is so important to Bulgakov that he argues that the Protestant churches cannot reunite with Orthodoxy because they lack the “experiential knowledge of the Mother of God” (Bulgakov, BB, p. 48). Bulgakov, BL, p. 19. What keeps Palamas from pantheism is his insistence that God-in-Himself transcends God in God’s energy. Unlike Bulgakov, Palamas does not approach theology from the level of the subject, but rather from the testimonies of the Church Fathers, the Sacred Scriptures, and rational argumentation. Mikhail Sergeev, “The Religious-Philosophical Concept of Sophia: Its Genealogy and Evolution in Russian Thought in the 19th and 20th Centuries,” (Ph.D. diss., Philadelphia, Temple University, 1997), p. 130. Winston Ferris Crum, “Sergius N. Bulgakov: From Marxism to Sophiology,” (St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 27 (1983): pp. 3–25), pp. 14–15. Michael Aksionov Meerson, The Trinity of Love in Modern Russian Theology: The Love Paradigm and the Retrieval of Western Medieval Mysticism in Modern Russian Trinitarian Thought (from Solovyov to Bulgakov), (Quincy: Franciscan Press, 1983), p. 169. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, pp. 22–23. See for instance Proverbs 8 that personifies God’s Wisdom as a woman. Cf. Bulgakov, BL, p. 41. Arjakovsky, p. 223. Considering nature without relation to a hypostasis is an abstraction that Bulgakov virulently rejects. (Bulgakov, “On the Original Sin,” (Journal of the Fellowship of St. Albans and St. Sergius 7 (December 1929): pp. 15–25), p. 18.) Arjakovsky, p. 223. Meerson, p. 176; Love in this account is self-negating, emptying itself out in another personal being while all the time being united to that person. According to Bulgakov, Sophia is ousia. Nevertheless, ousia is not Sophia since, with regard to the theological antinomy, God as the absolute is unknown. What

Bulgakov’s method and sources

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

60

61

62 63

64 65

47

Bulgakov says is that the God as ousia is the Father who eternally reveals Himself to the Son and Holy Spirit. This revelation of the Father is at the same time the birth of Sophia. The Father is Sophia; however, he is Sophia as its source, “[h]e is the Divine-humanity which is not manifested, which is hidden and mysterious, but which is becoming manifested in divine self-revelation.” (Bulgakov, The Comforter, Epilogue, Location 5489 of 5490.) Bulgakov, Svet nevechernii, p. 212 cited in Kuvakin, p. 638. Bulgakov, BL, p. 106. Ibid., p. 106. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 36. John Milbank, “Sophiology and Theurgy: The New Theological Horizon,” Theology Philosophy Center, 2006, Theologyphilosophycenter.co.uk/Milbank_ SophiologyTheurgy.doc, accessed August 2, 2012, p. 28. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 35. Ibid., p. 35. Ibid. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 25 Arjakovsky, p. 228. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 40. Myroslaw Tataryn, “History Matters: Bulgakov’s Sophianic Key,” (St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49 (2005): pp. 203–218), p. 203. The same is true of the heroes of the Church. Bulgakov for instance argues that Cyril of Alexandria, the hero of Ephesus, had an incorrect understanding of Christ that was eventually rejected at the Council of Chalcedon. (Bulgakov, LG, Introduction. Sec. 2, Location 768.) The council of Chalcedon offers the synthesis that neither the Anthiochene nor Alexandrian school was able to reach. They were unable to reach a synthesis because of their one-sidedness. Bulgakov’s point is that “Dogma must transcend dialectic and overcome it in synthesis, but theologically this could not be accomplished at that time.” (Ibid., Introduction, Sec. 2, Locations 624–625 of 7314.) With God’s providence, the synthesis was reached only in the theology of the Council of Chalcedon. (Ibid., Introduction, Sec. 3, Location 778 of 7314.) Bulgakov employs Hegelian dialectics in his theological thought whereby he reaches his conclusion (the synthesis) based on the tension between the thesis and antithesis. (Note that he follows this same method when he propounds other antinomies of faith; however, with regard to an antinomy, no synthesis is reached, as the truth of an antinomic dogma is based precisely on the tension created between the two premises.) “Dogmas, if they are possible, are so not in the sense of logical and dialectical deductions but only as religious knowing.” (Bulgakov, UF, pp. 103–104.) Dogmas are a result of the Church’s encounter with God. Dialectics are but one, albeit important method, that Bulgakov employs to explain dogma. Bulgakov, BB, p. 86. Cyril of Alexandria, whose twelve anathemas against Nestorius and his followers were adopted by the Council of Ephesus, argues that Nestorius’ expression “Christokos” divides Christ into two persons, Christ and the Word of God. Nestorius’s statement lend itself toward this interpretation; for instance Nestorius argued “[h]e who was formed in the womb of Mary was not himself God, but God assumed him and for the sake of his being assumed, that which is assumed is called God.” (PL 48, 757–765 cited in Bulgakov, BB, p. 170, n. 19.) Bulgakov, BB, p. 89. In The Lamb of God, for instance, Bulgakov writes “Nestorius’s Christology thus exhibited a dialectically important aspect of the fundamental christological

48

66 67 68

69 70

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

79

Bulgakov’s method and sources antinomy: he attempted to understand the bi-unity as a unity not of natures but of their personal centers. How is an authentic and full life of the natures possible without personal centers, and how is the union of the natures in the form of the union of these centers possible in the case of the full reality of each of them? This dialectical unfolding of the problem has a great theological importance, and anticipating our later discussion, we can indicate now that this question remained unanswered and even essentially unnoticed within the framework of Patristic theology.” (Bulgakov, LG, Introduction, Sec. 2, Locations 707–710 of 7314.) Bulgakov, BB, p. 87. Cf. Ibid. Bulgakov also employs dialectics to explain the creation of the soul. He argues that a synthesis is needed between creationism and generationism, which both fail on account of their unwillingness to take seriously that God is not a timecontingent being. (Bulgakov, BB, p. 58.) The synthesis he reaches is a middle position between the two: the soul is created by both God and the parents of that soul. The creation of the soul is a synergistic event; God creates it from eternity that at the same moment it is realized in time, at the moment of conception. This dictum dates back to at least the fourth century when Prosper of Aquitaine used it. (Cf. Prosper of Aquitaine, PL 51:209–210.) Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Dogma and Dogmatic Theology” in Tradition Alive: On the Church and the Christian Life in Our Time /Readings from the Eastern Church, Edited and Translated by Michael Plekon, pp. 67–80, (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003), p. 69. Andrew Louth, “Sergii Bulgakov and the Task of Theology,” (Irish Theological Quarterly 74 (2009): pp. 243–257), p. 250. Cited in Louth, “Task of Theology,” p. 246. Bulgakov, BB, p. 3. Ibid., p. 3. Cf. Alexander I. Negrov, “Fr. Sergius Bulgakov (1871–1944): A Study in the Eastern Orthodox Hermeneutical Perspective,” (HTS Theological Studies 58.1 (2002): pp. 250–263), p. 258. Sergius N. Bulgakov, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Worship, (Christian East 13 (1932): pp. 30–42), p. 35. Ibid., p. 36. Bulgakov, “Dogma and Dogmatic Theology,” p. 69. The importance of the liturgy in his thought is a peculiar Russian quality. Anthony Ugolnik argues that the “[l]iturgy, in fact, is the central vehicle for meaning in the Russian pre-revolutionary consciousness.” (Anthony Ugolnik, “Textual Liturgics: Russian Orthodoxy and Recent Literary Criticism,” Religion & Literature 22.2–3 (Summer–Autumn, 1990): pp. 133–154, p. 136.) He demonstrates that the liturgy has a significant role not only in theological works but in popular literature such as poetry from Pushkin to Irina Ratushinskay and Boris Pasternak’s famous novel, Dr. Zhivago. Bulgakov was not alone in his emphatic reliance on the liturgy for his theology. Donald Lowrie argues that emphasis on liturgy for theology was a unique attribute of St. Sergius – where Bulgakov was dean – and attributed its prosperity to this emphasis. (Donald A. Lowrie, Saint Sergius in Paris: The Orthodox Institute, (London: S.P.C.K Publishing, 1954), p. 105.) Louth concurs with this assessment. (Louth, “Task of Theology,” p. 249.) For a splendid overview of Orthodox as well as Catholic interpretations of icons see Jeana Visel, Icons in the Western Church: Toward a More Sacramental Encounter, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2016).

Bulgakov’s method and sources

49

80 Bulgakov states that this icon was the inspiration of his minor trilogy. (Bulgakov, JL, p. xiii.) 81 “Living Tadition” is a popular phrase employed by prominent Orthodox and Catholic theologians today. Pope Benedict XVI, for instance, in Verbum Domini (2010) wrote, “living Tradition is essential for enabling the Church to grow through time in the understanding of the truth revealed in the Scriptures.” ((Pope Benedict XVI, “Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini of the Holy Father Benedict XVI to the Bishops, Clergy, Consecrated Persons, and the Lay Faithful on the Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church,” Vatican: The Holy See 30 September 2010, www.vatican.va, August 1, 2012), para. 17.) In the same work he interprets Dei Verbum in light of the living tradition. In Orthodoxy today “living tradition” is a popular phrase employed by various Orthodox authors including Kallistos Ware. (Cf. Kallistos Ware, “Tradition and Traditions” in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, Edited by Nicholas Lossky, pp. 1013–1017, (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1991), p. 1013.) Note that the popularity of this term in Orthodoxy can be traced back to Georges Florovsky and the neo-patristic movement, not Bulgakov. However, historically, as Paul Valliere notes, Bulgakov was the originator of this phrase. The term “living Tradition” was first expressed by Bulgakov and his supporters in 1937. (Valliere, MRT, p. 383.) 82 Bulgakov is therefore open to doctrinal development, as doctrines may need to be rewritten to more effectively express its content to a contemporary audience. This is clearly what Bulgakov does with respect to Mary. He wants to formulate an Orthodox expression of Mary that drops modern Nestorianism. 83 Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Revelation” in Revelation, Edited by John Baillie, Translated by Oliver F. Clarke and Xenia Braikevitch, pp. 125–180, (London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1937), p. 145. 84 Cf. Ibid., p. 148. Bulgakov is clear that the Bible is not materially sufficient. He says “revelation can never be limited to one source – even if this one is the most important source, namely, the written Word of God.” 85 Revelation itself is ongoing in the sense that it is a divine-human process. God does not simply give humankind supernatural precepts. This according to Bulgakov would be inaudible because humankind, which is a natural being, can only comprehend that which is natural. (Ibid., pp. 139–140.) Since humankind is continually changing, in order for revelation to remain relevant, it must be inculturated. Otherwise revelation is not a divine-human process but a divinehuman dead letter. Living tradition is the means through which the meaning and encounter of the divine-human process, that is codified in the Scriptures, continues to reveal God to humankind. Therefore, Bulgakov writes: “the Bible belongs to history and moves within it as we do.” (Ibid., p. 160.) 86 Negrov, p. 256. 87 This ecclesial mode of interpreting the Bible presupposes Bulgakov’s underlying anthropology that emphasizes the corporate reality of the human individual and denies that a human person is an entity unto him/herself. (Cf. Ibid., p. 260.) 88 Bulgakov, “Revelation,” p. 144. 89 Cf. Sergius N. Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1988), p. 11. 90 Bulgakov, “Dogma and Dogmatic Theology,” p. 69. 91 These un-named scholars are liberal Protestants. (Cf. Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, p. 17.) 92 Bulgakov, “Revelation,” p. 159. 93 Ibid., p. 160. 94 Ibid., p. 161.

50

Bulgakov’s method and sources

95 George H. Tavard, The Thousand Faces of the Virgin Mary, (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996), pp. 19–20. Although he does not address this tradition, Aidan Nichols makes an insightful argument that Mary’s response to the Angel Gabriel in the original Greek provides evidence that Mary may have taken a vow of celibacy, which is what would have been expected from a temple virgin to do. He argues that one possible translation of Mary’s response illustrates this clearly, “How can this be since I am not to know man.” (Luke 1:34) (Aidan Nichols, There Is No Rose: The Mariology of the Catholic Church, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), pp. 10–12.) 96 This is the only time Bulgakov explicitly employs historical scholarship in The Burning Bush. Interestingly, the earliest evidence there is for Christian belief in the Dormition of Mary is the Transitus Mariae or “Transits of Mary” that some scholars date to the late second century. (Cf. Edouard Cothenet, “Marie dans les Apocryphes” in Maria: Estudes sur la sainte Vierge, pp. 71–156, (Paris: Beauchesne, 1949.) 97 Bulgakov, BB, p. 73. In his Unfading Light, Bulgakov speaks more clearly about the nature of legend or myth. He writes “a myth contains in itself something new, until then unknown to the mythmaker himself, and this content is affirmed as a self-evident truth. This self-evidence is generated precisely by the experience-intuitive character of its origin. Inherent in myth is its own credibility which rests not on proofs but on the power and persuasiveness of immediate experience. Myth is expresses an encounter with the immanent world – of human consciousness (no matter how we may expand and deepen it) and the transcendent divine world. The transcendent, all the while preserving its proper nature, at the same time becomes immanent, whereas the immanent opens itself, feeling in itself the inculcation of the transcendent.” (Bulgakov, UF, p. 98.) 98 The Burning Bush was an attempt to express the life and practice of the Church. His reason for doing so was the ambiguity on Mary’s sinlessness in Orthodoxy coupled with an inordinate “polemical dependence on Catholic dogmatization.” (Bulgakov, BB, p. 5.) 99 The icon of The Mother of God with Child is important in his thought, as it expresses Mary’s role in salvation history, which is always an expression of her relationship to Christ. Perhaps the Icon of the Sign best illustrates the various themes of this book since in Bulgakov’s words it represents the “fullness of sophianic revelation” and it depicts Mary during her fiat with Christ. 100 Bulgakov, BB, p. 9. Based on the liturgical services of “Service for the burial of a child” and the “Entrance into the Temple” Bulgakov concludes that Mary was sinless from her conception until her Annunciation. From the first service Bulgakov argues that this age, presumably conception until the age of three, is an age of incorruption from sin. At three, Mary entered the Temple, where according to the liturgical feast she led a life of prayer to God; and, in fact, she was fed by angels and in communion with them. (Bulgakov, BB, p. 8.) Bulgakov finds it unlikely that someone who was in communion with angels could sin. Mary left the Temple and was placed under the protection of righteous Joseph. Afterward, at the Annunciation, she receives the Holy Spirit and her purity is elevated to a heavenly state. For Bulgakov attributing personal sin to Mary during her time under the protection of “righteous Joseph,” or at the time of the Annunciation, or after the Annunciation is blasphemy. Not only is there no biblical or liturgical justification – Bulgakov, however, admits there is some patristic ground for doing so (i.e., Origen, St. Basil, and John Chrysostom) – for attributing sin to Mary, especially after the Annunciation, but the services of the Theotokos are clear that Mary is “the true divine temple pure from infancy on.”

Bulgakov’s method and sources

101 102 103 104

105 106 107

108 109 110 111 112

51

(Bulgakov, BB, p. 9.) Bulgakov relies on an argument of fittingness. It is fitting that Mary remains personally sinless because personal sin is that which separates us from God. Sin for Bulgakov has no ontological value; it is a “privation, an accident.” (Bulgakov, BL, p. 147.) Sin is a state of alienation prompted by personal choice. To sin in any way is to make a deliberate choice against God; it is to separate oneself from God. All sin is ultimately a selfish choice. Mary’s fiat is a complete gift of self to God. “The smallest sin would have broken the integrity of this self-giving and the power of this expression [(i.e., Mary’s fiat)].” (Bulgakov, BB, p. 41.) Mary’s fiat was not simply a response but her acceptance of God’s will with her entire being. This is necessary because God requires this. God will only become human when humankind is ready and willing to receive God. This readiness is found in Mary. Otherwise God, Who vouchsafes human freedom, would in some way deny this freedom since God would incarnate in a woman who was not completely accepting of the Incarnation. To suggest that Mary could sin after giving birth to Christ is unfounded; for Bulgakov, it is simply unthinkable to suggest that Mary could reach a perfect state of holiness, for which we are all made, experience the grace of Incarnation, and then reject God. Bulgakov, BB, p. 54. Ibid., p. 12. Ibid., p. 13. Salvation is an activity of the Holy Spirit, through whom, according to Bulgakov, Mary saves. Bulgakov, in fact, ends his fourth chapter in The Burning Bush with the liturgical hymn “Most Holy Theotokos, save us!” This confirms Mary’s active and pneumatophoric function in the economy of salvation. He writes Mary “is not being saved but saves. Here the particular participation of the Holy Spirit in our salvation is revealed and afterwards that of the mother of God, not as a savior . . . but as an advocate and intercessor for the human race.” (Bulgakov, BB, p. 109.) Bulgakov’s stress on Mary’s intercessory function present in Chapter 4 clearly derives from the Canon of Prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos at the departure of a soul, where it is professed that Mary meets the soul immediately after death (Cf. Bulgakov, BB, p. 70) and the Proskomedia, where a portion of the unconsecrated eucharistic bread is set aside in honor of Mary next to the first portion set aside in honor of Christ. Bulgakov interpreted this offering as indicative of Mary’s intercessory role for humankind, particularly in the eucharistic sacrifice. Bulgakov, BB, p. 5. Negrov, p. 261. In The Burning Bush he quotes this verse eight separate times. The Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) is also important. Bulgakov uses this famous canticle to place Mary’s mediation squarely within the mediation of Christ. Thus, Mary calls Christ her Savior. (Bulgakov, BB, p. 10.) This pericope also justifies Mary’s continued veneration. (Ibid., p. 114.) Bulgakov argues that Mary’s place at the cross (Jn 19:25) was a continuation of her fiat in Nazareth. (Bulgakov, BB, p. 111.) God always leaves room for human freedom. Bulgakov writes: “But grace does not compel and always leaves a place for human effort and freedom.” (Bulgakov, BB, p. 69.) Myroslaw Tataryn, Augustine and Russian Orthodoxy: Russian Orthodox Theologians and Augustine of Hippo a Twentieth Century Dialogue, (Lanham, MD: International Scholarly Publication, 2000), p. 82. Cf. Bulgakov, BB, pp. 10, 34, 44, 71. More on this will be said below.

52

Bulgakov’s method and sources

113 Bulgakov compares the violent death of Christ to the natural death of Mary as evidence that Mary was affected by the original sin. After all, the effect of the original sin is natural death. (Bulgakov, BB, pp. 71–72.) 114 Ibid., pp. 75–76. 115 Ibid., p. 80. 116 It is also used as a reading in various Marian feasts. 117 BB., p. 108. 118 Bulgakov follows St. Ambrose’s argument here. (Bulgakov, BB, p. 103, n. 37.) 119 Cf. Bulgakov, BB, pp. 103–104. This association plays out in the book of Revelation that also speaks of the Bride, to whom Bulgakov attributes a mariological interpretation. (Cf. Rev 19.7; 22.17.) 120 Cf. Bulgakov, BB, pp. 103, 105. 121 Ibid., p. 105.

3

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

Introduction Bulgakov is no exception to the dictum “no one lives in a vacuum.” Bulgakov’s Mariology is a product of his milieu and life experiences. Nevertheless, the sources of his Mariology are not obvious. There is a temptation to place Bulgakov’s theological contributions within the context of the Paris school, whose epicenter was St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute where Bulgakov was dean and considered the greatest Orthodox theologian in the emigration. After all, Bulgakov published or wrote his minor and major trilogies during his tenure at Saint Sergius. Moreover, as one might expect from an émigré theologian residing in a Catholic country, Bulgakov’s theology responds to Catholicism and the Catholic cult of Mary. The Burning Bush, in fact, was published in 1926—one year after Bulgakov took up his teaching post at Saint Sergius. Bulgakov included in this text a note stating that this text was originally intended as a critical evaluation of the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception.1 However, this text was written in 1924;2 this means that Bulgakov was working on it immediately after his flirtation with Catholicism and reaffirmation of his Orthodoxy. This text, therefore, is as much an affirmation of his commitment to Orthodoxy as it is a justification for his rejection of Catholicism that translates into a vociferous polemic against the Catholic mariological tradition. Moreover, his reflections on Mary in later works such as her role in the dread judgment in The Bride of the Lamb are largely a reiteration and elaboration of what he discusses in The Burning Bush. There is little doubt that his interactions and experiences in Paris influenced other areas of his thought, particularly his ecumenism and Christology; however, the Paris school and his peers at Saint Sergius do not play a substantive role in the development of his Mariology.3 To better understand the genesis of Bulgakov’s Mariology, it is important to note that The Burning Bush reflects a slavophil animus that rejected all things Catholic and sought a unique Russian interpretation of Christian doctrine. It is no surprise that Bulgakov’s Mariology presented in The Burning Bush and polemic with Catholicism elaborates his arguments in his Unfading Light (1917). Unfading Light is a seminal work for his

54

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

theological period as it elucidates many of his ideas that he will spend the last two decades of his life developing. With regard to The Burning Bush, the main arguments evident in this text are stated in Unfading Light. This includes Bulgakov’s polemic with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that is rooted in a deficient anthropology, co-suffering of Mary with Jesus, that Mary is the glorification and sanctification of the world,4 and Mary’s relationship to the Holy Spirit.5 In this text, we find a mild identification of Sophia with Mary, as Bulgakov only mentions in passing that in Russian Orthodoxy, Sophia is identified with the Mother of God. What is most instructive about Unfading Light is Bulgakov’s theological methodology that includes his usage of the liturgical texts as a source for his reflections on Orthodox Mariology.6 On the relationship of the Holy Spirit to Mary, particularly how it was possible for Mary to take part in the Incarnation, Bulgakov states that we must approach liturgical texts with a “prayerful heart prostrate before the Patroness of the world” to reveal the answer. Bulgakov’s emphasis on the liturgy as the source of theology undoubtedly left an imprint on his peers and students. Bulgakov’s stress on the liturgy as a source of theological inspiration is a hallmark of the Paris School.7 To place Bulgakov’s Mariology exclusively within his Paris period is unwarranted, as his main insights on Mary pre-date his Paris period. Moreover, the nineteenth century witnessed remarkable manuals of theology and personalities with whom Bulgakov was familiar; all of these theologians spoke about the Mother of God. Filaret of Moscow, a favorite theologian-bishop of Bulgakov’s,8 spoke about Mary in various works and often draws inspiration for his theology from the Marian icons.9 Filaret’s style of theology that is similar to Bulgakov’s style was a departure from other influential manualists such as Met. Leschevin, Met. Markii, Archbishop Silvester, and Markii Bulgakov.10 Nevertheless, Bulgakov was critical of these manualists because they appropriated scholastic theological method. At Saint Sergius, in fact, Bulgakov was embroiled in a debate with other Russian theologians as to what should replace Markii Bulgakov’s manual of theology for this reason. In Bulgakov’s theological texts, the imprint and influence of the manualists are visible, and for instance in The Burning Bush, although none of the manualists factor into his Mariology per se, he juxtaposes his anthropology, which is necessary to interpret Mary’s perpetual sinlessness against two manualists, Met. Markii Silvester and Archbishop Filaret of Chernigov. Nevertheless, there is little evidence to suggest that these manuals of theology or any of these theologians played a central role in the development of his Mariology. The manualists, including Filaret of Moscow, are sources among other sources, including the Church Fathers, the liturgy, the saints, and other Russian theologians and hierarchs. Bulgakov in his foreword in The Burning Bush states explicitly that his sources for his Mariology are “[b]esides the explicit dogmatic definitions of the church, the Word of God and patristic tradition, it is the Church’s prayer life, prompted by the Holy Spirit.”11 The “prayerful veneration” of the Most Holy Mother of God by the Orthodox Church is the main source of his theological inspiration.12

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

55

Bulgakov envisioned himself as an Orthodox theologian, whose goal was to articulate more clearly the life of Orthodoxy where there was ambiguity. The life of Orthodoxy that is expressed in its worship of the God is his main source. However, Bulgakov interprets Orthodoxy through the lens of a theological tradition, Sophiology. This fact is well-attested by not only scholars but also Bulgakov himself. Bulgakov not only refers to Vladimir Solov’ev, the father of modern Russian Sophiology, as his “philosophical guide to Christ” but also situated his theology as the development of Pavel Florensky, who in Bulgakov’s estimation made Sophiology orthodox, rejecting the gnostic tendencies of Solov’ev.13 In Bulgakov’s famous defense of his Sophiology, Sophia: The Wisdom of God, Bulgakov not only attempts to legitimize Sophiology as an Orthodox theology but places himself after Florensky, a famous Russian theologian, priest, and scholar, whose Sophiology was not condemned, as one who continues to explicate the implications tradition for Orthodoxy. Bulgakov’s Mariology is no exception. His Mariology should not be divorced from his sophiological project. Similarities between Bulgakov’s Mariology and the Mariology of Solov’ev and Florensky are not perchance. Juxtaposing Bulgakov’s Mariology against their Mariology reveals that Bulgakov extends and amends the Sophiological project initiated by Solov’ev and enhanced by Florensky. This claim may seem controversial since Bulgakov is reticent about their influence in his minor and major trilogies, making very few references to them in the body of his texts. However, Bulgakov openly acknowledges his debt to both men14 and appropriates their interest in Sophia, which was based on the Russian devotion to Holy Wisdom as the Mother of God.15 Bulgakov’s Mariology is no exception to this observation; he incorporates their insights about Mary into his Mariology. His Mariology should be placed within the Russian Sophiological tradition initiated by Solov’ev and continued by Florensky. Bulgakov’s The Burning Bush is the fullest expression of sophianic Mariology.16 Bulgakov’s relative silence on their influence in his published theological works is not surprising since Bulgakov’s concern is the elaboration of the Orthodox devotion to Mary, not Sophiology per se. Sophiology simply is what Bulgakov deemed the best theological tool that enabled him to understand God and Orthodoxy better. The explicit acknowledgment of the influence of Florensky and Solov’ev would not have served this purpose. Nevertheless, the uncanny similarities between Bulgakov’s, Florensky’s, and Solov’ev’s Mariology cannot be overlooked. It requires inspection because Bulgakov incorporates Solov’ev’s emphasis on Mary’s femininity and relationship to Sophia and Florensky’s emphasis on Mary’s virginity, Mary’s manifestation of the Holy Spirit, and her role as the center of Creation and the Church, to name a few.17 For these reasons, to better understand Bulgakov’s Mariology, this chapter will provide an analysis of Solov’ev’s and Florensky’s Mariology and then compare points of similarities and departures between these authors and Bulgakov.

56

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

Vladimir Solov’ev and the Mother of God Vladimir Solov’ev is widely considered the father of Russian Sophiology. His influence on Sergius Bulgakov is undeniable.18 In addition to what I have mentioned above, from 1918 to 1927 Bulgakov was a member of Bratstvo sviatoi Sofii [Brotherhood of the Holy Sophia] that continued the discussion on Sophia begun by Solov’ev.19 Moreover, Bulgakov spends much of his career revising and building upon Solov’ev’s foundation.20 For Solov’ev, the Mother of God was an important aspect of his Sophiology. Solov’ev, working from the Orthodox tradition, was the first to stress Mary’s relationship with Sophia that was based on popular Russian devotion, iconography, and Marian feasts associated with the Russian Churches dedicated to Sophia.21 Within Solov’ev’s corpus of works, however, he does not explicate an Orthodox Mariology. Moreover, there is a clear development in his thought on Mary’s role in salvation history. Mary plays a minor role in his first major Sophiological work, Lectures on Godmanhood (1877–1881), but a much more vital role in later works (e.g., Russia and the Universal Church (1889)). This link between Mary and was so pervasive in Solov’ev later works that Rozanov attributed the spread of the cult of Mary in Russia to Solov’ev due to the popularity of this text.22 Interestingly, Solov’ev’s growing interest in Mary directly corresponds to his growing interest in Catholicism and Orthodoxy and movement away from his earlier fascination with the occult.

Solov’ev sophianic Mariology To understand Solov’ev’s Mariology, it is important to outline his Sophiology briefly. Sophiology is the conceptual tool Solov’ev employs to make Godhumanhood or the fundamental correlation between God and humankind clear.23 For Solov’ev, God is in some sense human and humankind is in some sense divine: this is Godhumanhood.24 Sophia is elucidated within the context of Godhumanhood, and Sophia is the manner in which God communicates with the world. Solov’ev differentiated Sophia into three parts corresponding to this dialogical relationship between God and humankind. Sophia consists of a higher, middle, and lower part:25 the higher part is the divine part. As the divine part, Sophia is a center within the Godhead. She is the prima materia, the intelligible matter of the Absolute. Sophia is God’s world, replete with ideas.26 The middle part is the space or void between Sophia as divine and Sophia as the World-Soul or Sophia in her lower part.27 The middle part allows for causality, space, and time (i.e., for creation to unfold its vocation to be reunited with Sophia, yet the higher and lower remain connected by the middle).28 The relationship between the higher and lower part of Sophia unfolds as the economy of salvation. Following a Gnostic understanding of the original sin, according to Solov’ev, the original sin refers to the separation of the World-Soul from Sophia.29 Within this account, humankind has a special vocation as the only

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

57

being capable of reuniting the World-Soul with Sophia. However, humankind fails to realize this possibility and is overcome by the World-Soul.30 This impotence on the part of humankind sets the stage for the Savior, Christ Jesus.31 As fully human and divine, Christ stands at the center of human history.32 Through him, the reunion between the World-Soul (lower part) and Sophia (higher part) begins. Not only was he free from the negative influence of the World-Soul, but he is God. Corresponding to the hypostatic union, Christ has a dual significance for the World-Soul. In his divinity as the Logos and Second Person of the Trinity (active divine reason that has direct access to the matter of Sophia), Christ reunites with the World-Soul, which had broken away from him in its pre-cosmic fall.33 In his humanity, Christ accomplishes what humankind could not; He reunites the World-Soul with Sophia.34 However, Christ’s accomplishment is not fully realized until humankind participates in it. Regarding ecclesiology, the Church’s primary function is to allow space for this participation so that humankind could participate in the Incarnation in as much as it realizes this reunion of the World-Soul with Sophia that Christ accomplished.35 For my purpose, it is important to note that the reunion of the World-Soul with Sophia meant no less than the reunion of the male and female sexes. Solov’ev, who is a gender essentialist and circumscribes human activity within a traditional gender binary, argues that in the original harmonious relationship between Sophia and the World-Soul the sexes were united. Olga Matich, summarizing Solov’ev’s thought, argues that Solov’ev viewed life’s task as reassembling the sundered body into a whole by reuniting male and female in a collective gender that is beyond sexual difference, a state that he affiliated with the figure of the androgyne.36 The experience of love between men and women confirms this speculation, which Solov’ev interpreted as an existential desire to overcome their division, to be saved from the disintegration of their original unity that results in death.37 Thus the World-Soul’s goal is to become an “androgynous godman,” which it was before it separated itself from Sophia.38 Solov’ev’s doctrine of the “androgynous godman” reveals the true meaning of human existence, to be the higher unity of the two [men and women]. To realize this unity or to create the true human being as the free unity of the masculine and the feminine elements, which preserve their formal separateness but overcome their essential disparity and disruption, is the direct task of love.39 In this account, the Incarnation entails the incipient realization of the “androgynous godman.” Christ provides the perfect masculine response

58

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

that makes this possible.40 However, the Incarnation is incomplete without Christ’s feminine counterpart. This account of the economy of salvation sets the stage for Solov’ev’s Mariology. Mary is the archetypical female, whose femininity complements Christ’s masculinity.41 In other words, Christ in his maleness is represented as the perfect Godman, while the Virgin in her femaleness is the perfect female,42 and together they incorporate the maleness and femaleness in the World-Soul that actuates the reunion of Sophia and the World-Soul. Again, the Church plays an important role in this relationship as the realization of their perfect male-female relationship, and it is the perfect corporate humanity that allows for the rest of humankind to take part in this relationship.43 Christ and Mary are the head and heart of the Church respectively.44 Therefore “the Church, human Society made divine, possesses fundamentally the same substance as the incarnate Person of Christ or His individual Humanity,”45 which is the humanity of Mary.46 Therefore Mary and Christ realize the “androgynous godman” or the World-Soul to which humankind is called to participate in as a member of the Church. Solov’ev comes to the conclusion that together with Christ, Mary, and the Church reveal Sophia in its different aspects, as male, female, and the collective or Sophia herself, “the Spouse and Bride of the Divine Word.”47 Mary in Solov’ev’s account is largely a passive figure.48 It is her passivity and “self-surrender of her feminine nature” that is most important for Solov’ev.49 Given his gender essentialism, the Logos, as perfect activity (i.e., maleness, could only incarnate as a male) and to become human, the Son needed a human nature that could receive his divinity (i.e., a perfectly passive or female nature that must be without sin). Only Mary was capable of providing the human nature necessary for the Incarnation because she gives the perfect feminine response that passively and receptively accepts God’s will.50 In Mary, humankind is willing and able to welcome God Incarnate. Unfortunately, Solov’ev’s stress on gender as a defining characteristic for personhood depersonalizes not only Mary but also women. Mary is not a historical person but rather an archetypical feminine nature/woman, who primarily has a natural and essential function.51 Solov’ev does not mince words about this; he writes: Mary is the “perfect Woman” as “nature made Divine.”52 His depersonalized view of Mary follows from his male chauvinism that interprets a woman’s significance as only the means for man to realize himself.53 Mary’s main relevance for Solov’ev is that she is the greatest expression of passive womanhood (or nature) that allows a man to realize himself perfectly. “[W]hat could not be revealed in Eve or Tamar or Rahab or Ruth or Bathsheba, was one day revealed in Mary.”54 Solov’ev does not consider Mary’s personal holiness and initiative in the Incarnation. He suggests that Mary’s holiness is a result of the righteous acts of her ancestors that “mitigate the effects of evil and to prepare the means of future salvation.”

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

59

His emphasis on Mary’s passivity corresponds directly to Sophia’s passivity in relation to God as the “passive medium” through which God creates and redeems by the Logos.55 After all, the Theotokos is Sophia’s personal manifestation. Mary’s passivity, more specifically, allows Sophia to be manifested in the World-Soul.56 This is the importance of Mary for Solov’ev and his Sophiology: she prepares the World-Soul for the Incarnation or the future reunion between upper Sophia with lower Sophia. Only after Mary’s Immaculate Conception and a holy life is the World-Soul prepared to receive the Logos, who in his maleness as Christ incarnate will completely reunite Sophia and the World-Soul. Solov’ev’s stress on the three successive manifestations of Sophia as Christ, Mary, and Church, places Mary outside of the Church to an extent. He argues that Mary has a greater dignity than the Church and is a fuller manifestation of Sophia.57 At the same time, Mary is the “heart of the Church.”58 This latent contradiction between the idealization of Mary, and placement of Mary squarely within the life of the Church, is never really overcome by Solov’ev. Solov’ev did not see a contradiction here because Christ, Mary, and the Church are all manifestations of Sophia in different ways but are intimately connected. Mary cannot be disassociated from the Church, as the Church is the extension of the Incarnation or Mary’s humanity. However, the Church will participate in her personal manifestation of Sophia to some extent;59 yet the degree of this realization of Sophia is not possible for any other created person. Nevertheless, it is through Christ that this participation is possible and can be actuated.

Solov’ev and the Immaculate Conception For Solov’ev, the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception was consistent with his Sophiology and Orthodoxy because only a sinless person could offer the passive response that Mary did, which initiated the Incarnation. In Russia and the Universal Church (1889), Solov’ev addresses the mariological debate within Russia surrounding Pope Pius IX’s Ineffabilis Deus that dogmatically defined the Immaculate Conception. In this work, he does not profess the Immaculate Conception as dogma; however, he demonstrates that Orthodoxy is inherently open to this dogma insofar as no ecumenical council has rejected the Immaculate Conception. Moreover, he argues that many Orthodox oppose the authority behind the expression (i.e., the Pope) but not the expression itself.60 This expression is not necessarily contrary to Orthodoxy since the appellation of “immaculate” is continually used for the Mother of God in the divine liturgy in Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, in a letter to Bishop Strossmayer dated September 29, 1886,61 Solov’ev professes the Immaculate Conception as a sublime truth that is faithful to Orthodox theology.

60

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

In actuality, Pius IX’s 1854 dogmatic definition served Solov’ev well since he believed that this definition was based on the application of biblical Sophia in wisdom literature to Mary.62 Therefore it not only gave further sanction to Solov’ev’s Sophiology but also presented an opportunity, illustrating that the Russian devotion to Sophia is consistent with the Catholic marian cult.63 Overall Solov’ev’s Mariology is schematic and unfinished. Solov’ev presents the first attempt to make thematic the relationship of Mary and Sophia that was present in Russian iconography and the liturgy. Thus the historical Mary, Mary’s role in salvation history, and the cult of Mary do not receive serious consideration. Moreover, unlike Bulgakov’s pneumatological Mariology, Solov’ev’s Mariology is circumscribed within Christology. Mary’s main significance is her participation in the Incarnation, providing Christ with a perfect feminine nature. She is the expression of the divine feminine that paves the way for the Incarnation. However, Solov’ev’s insistence that Mary is the feminine manifestation of Sophia and provides the humanity of Christ will be taken up by Bulgakov. But the immediate beneficiary of Solov’ev’s Mariology was Pavel Florensky.

Pavel Florensky and Bulgakov Pavel Florensky was one of the most prodigious and prolific scholars of the Russian Religious Renaissance. For his work in theology, he was widely known by his contemporaries as the “Theologian of the Silver Age.”64 Bulgakov thought highly of his friend and considered him his teacher.65 Bulgakov appropriates Florensky’s thought into his own;66 he gives it a full systematic exposition from the standpoint of speculative and dogmatic theology.67 Bulgakov’s antinomic basis for his Sophiology is, in fact, directly appropriated from Florensky, who develops this epistemology in contrast to Solov’ev’s conciliar, syncretistic system.68 They became acquainted through their participation in the Christian Brotherhood for Struggle around 1905. Between 1906 and 1918 Bulgakov and Florensky’s friendship flourished. Their mutual interest in creating a new identity for the Russian Church in the tumultuous times of the first two decades of the twentieth century forged their relationship. Florensky and Bulgakov worked on a variety of projects together that promoted the study of Sophiology; this included the publication of Anna N. Schmidt’s esoteric works and reviews of Sergei Solov’ev’s new edition of Vladimir Solov’ev’s works.69 Bulgakov even helped prepare Florensky’s revised thesis, The Pillar and Ground of Truth: An Essay in Orthodox Theology in Twelve Letters (1913) for publication. Their work in the Church brought them notoriety, and with Bulgakov, Florensky was asked to participate in the “All Russian Council of the Russian Orthodox Church” that opened in 1917. Together they participated in two separate sessions: a session on the education and formation

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

61

of candidates to the priesthood and a session on the imiaslavtsy, the name-worshippers.70 Pavel Florensky and Mary During the first decade of the twentieth century in Russia, Solov’ev was a controversial character. Florensky should be seen as among those scholars who recognized Solov’ev’s positive contribution to scholarship.71 However, Florensky was critical of Solov’ev. Therefore, he cautiously builds on Solov’ev’s foundation and attempts to make Sophiology Orthodox by avoiding Solov’ev’s rationalism72 that leads to his pantheism73 and determinism.74 By stressing the transcendence of God with respect to Sophia, Florensky accomplishes this. Sophia is God but not consubstantial with the Trinity. She is a mediating principle between God and Creation. Moreover, Florensky’s Sophiology drops Solov’ev’s esoteric language and places Solov’ev’s speculations squarely within an Orthodox context. The starting point of his Sophiology is not the precosmic fall but rather the two worlds, a visible and invisible world. The title of his first letter “Two Worlds” in his The Pillar and Ground of Truth confirms this. In a platonic fashion, Florensky argues that the invisible world is the world of the prototypes, the noumena, which correspond to the visible world, the visible image of these prototypes, the phenomena. Sophia is first and foremost the ideal world; she is not only the prototypes themselves but the world containing these prototypes. She is the “precosmic, hypostatic concentration of divine prototypes.”75 Therefore everything is an expression of divine Sophia.76 It is in this sense that Florensky speaks of Sophia’s divine dimension. Sophia is an all-embracing subject.77 Sophia is not the realm of the abstract but points to a God that is love and seeks to have this love reciprocated.78 Sophia is more than simply an attribute of God, but God turned toward us. She is the fourth hypostatic, nonconsubstantial person79or a “love-idea-monad.”80 After all, as the wisdom of God or logoi of creation, God as Sophia is an “absolute idea of the relative, the idea of God of a particular thing.”81 The logoi themselves connote a primary condition whereby God empties Godself of God’s absoluteness in order to allow for creation. The logoi are then God’s self-emptying love for creatures.82 Nevertheless, Sophia cannot be equated with God, but only as God-in-dialogue with the world. Sophia is the substance of love produced by the Trinity for the purpose of giving life to created being. God is emptied of God’s absolute qualities to give autonomy and life to creation. What we have here is a form of what Bulgakov called “panentheism.” Despite his revisions of Solov’ev’s Sophiology, Florensky largely explicates Solov’ev’s insights on Mary, especially on Mary’s relationship to Sophia. However, Florensky focuses on Mary’s virginity and Mary’s role in salvation history as opposed to Solov’ev’s stress on her passivity and role in the Incarnation.83 Like Solov’ev, Florensky’s Mariology is not a full-blooded

62

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

theological system, but nevertheless, Mary plays an important role in his Sophiology. If we seek a rational explanation of Mary’s role in the economy of salvation, we need to look elsewhere, since this is not Florensky’s intent. In fact, he criticized scholastic theology for an overly rational approach to Mary, and failure to take into account the honor and esteem the Church attributes to the virginity of Mary.84 Florensky’s primary mariological work with which Bulgakov was familiar is Letter Ten of The Pillar and Ground of Truth. In this letter, Florensky bases his ideas primarily on the Orthodox liturgical and religious consciousness about Mary and explicates the Mother of God in the context of his Sophiology.85 Florensky should be viewed as a midway point in the development of Russian Sophiology/Mariology; Bulgakov provides the fullest elaboration of Sophiology/Mariology. For Florensky, Mary is the greatest creation. It is precisely her esteemed place in creation that will allow Florensky to associate her with Sophia, for him, Mary personifies Sophia. These three acclamations for Mary summarize Florensky’s teaching on Mary: “creatural beauty personified,” “everVirgin Theotokos,” and “bearer of Sophia.”86All of these terms will prove to be axiomatic for Bulgakov. Three acclamations Florensky’s Mariology incorporates theological aesthetics.87 Knowledge of truth is a holistic affair that integrates cognitive processes with the entire human person that includes the capacity to perceive beauty. Beauty is important because it attends to realities that cannot be portrayed in conceptual terms, precisely because they are living holistic experiences.88 Beauty reveals something ontological about the subject of depiction. Beauty is the true essence of the subject.89 In other words, it is the inner higher form, for which the created rational capacity cannot logically account, and when it attempts to do so, it encounters an antinomy.90 However, beauty for Florensky has a spiritual connotation beyond aesthetics. To say something is beautiful is to affirm its holiness, purity, and innocence. Florensky calls this beauty “subjective beauty.”91 Recognition of “subjective beauty” denotes the saintliness of a subject, which reveals its “original creation” separated from its corruption.92 Subjective beauty also has a pneumatological implication, since, for Florensky, it is the Holy Spirit who manifests Sophia as beauty as well as deifies creation. Within the context of his Sophiology, the Holy Spirit is the spirituality of creation who “reveals Himself in creation as virginity, inner chasteness, and humble immaculateness.”93 Thus, the beauty a believer experiences at the sight of Marian image points to the fact that Mary is a “[m]anifestation of the Holy Spirit.”94 Florensky writes “just as the Spirit is the beauty of the Absolute, so the Mother of God is the Beauty of the Creaturely.”95 Mary is to Sophia what the Holy Spirit is to God manifested in divine Sophia.96 Because Mary

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

63

is the first to embrace the Holy Spirit, she is the Holy Spirit’s preliminary appearance on earth.97 The preliminary aspect of this revelation reveals an eschatological element of Florensky’s Mariology. Mary reveals the consummation of the world. The implication is that we are all called in some sense to reveal this beauty and take part in a similar manifestation of the Holy Spirit in our lives. This subjective beauty is intimately related to virginity since virginity refers to the pragmatic living out of beauty. To be beautiful is to be a virgin and vice versa. Virginity in this sense refers to “inner chastity, and humble immaculateness,”98 or the lack of lust and selfish will. Florensky argues that acquiring virginity is a necessary condition of salvation, to be pure of heart, not seeing anything else except God.99 With respect to Mary, because she reveals the essential beauty of Sophia to the world or she is “creatural beauty personified,” Mary is also the Ever-Virgin. Florensky writes: “[b]ut the true sign of Mary Full of Grace is Her Virginity, the beauty of Her soul. This is precisely Sophia.”100 As the Ever-Virgin, Mary is first and foremost the soul or center of not only the Church but Sophia. Although Florensky accepts the perpetual virginity of Mary, he emphasizes Mary’s spiritual virginity.101 Mary, therefore, shares a special relationship with “virgins of the spirit,” which he analogically expresses as “the angels in flesh,”102 to those who have undergone the process of ascesis.103 Like Mary we are all called to acquire a “virginal soul,” which for most of the human race will involve ascesis.104 There are exceptions to this; basing himself on the teaching of an important Russian saint canonized during Florensky’s lifetime, Saint Seraphim of Sarov, Florensky argues that there are Christians who are of “Mary’s kind.”105 These are saints, who like Mary have little or no knowledge of the struggles of the flesh from birth.106 They are “angels of the flesh” predisposed to the virginity of the soul by the Mother of God.107 Mary remains an exemplar of holiness for them.108 Florensky’s logic is circular. Because Mary, Sophia, and the Holy Spirit share an intimate relationship, they all share the same attributes. Thus, just as Florensky appropriates beauty to Sophia, the Holy Spirit, and Mary, he also appropriates virginity to them. The Holy Spirit personifies virginity because the Holy Spirit gives the gifts of virginity: inner chastity and humble immaculateness. Sophia is virginity because Sophia is the ideal virginal state for which we all strive, but also the means by which virginity as grace is given to the Christian.109 It seems that the Holy Spirit works in/through Sophia, as the Holy Spirit graces Christians with this gift. It is on this account that Florensky will assert that the Holy Spirit is Sophia.110 Florensky’s stress on Mary’s virginity is indicative of her special relationship with the Holy Spirit and Sophia. Being “in the strict sense of the word . . . Virgin full of grace,”111 the Holy Spirit completely deifies Mary. It is through Mary’s virginal state that Florensky can speak of her as the personal center of Sophia or Sophia par excellence. By analogy, since

64

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

the Church is also Sophia par excellence, Mary is the preexistent Church of God, of which she is the first to actualize. Thus Florensky proclaims her as the “True Church of God,” and playing on bodily imagery; he calls her “the True Body of Christ” from which the Body of Christ proceeds.112 Mary, as Ever-Virgin, shares in the essential purity of the Church; therefore, Florensky will freely identify the Church with Mary.113 Just as she is the heart of Sophia, she is also the heart of the Church. Mary is the heart of the Church, as opposed to Christ, who is the head of the Church.114 The title “heart of the Church” is not simply an honorary title,115 but rather reveals something important about Mary. According to Florensky, the heart is “the organ for the perception of the heavenly world”; it allows for humankind to perceive their spiritual root that is Sophia.116 Only pure hearts can see God. Salvation entails the acquisition of such a heart where “the ineffable Light of the Trihypostatic Son penetrates into the human consciousness.”117 Thus, Mary as the heart of the Church is not only a deified being but also the Church accomplished or the bearer of Sophia, Christian eschatology realized.118 Her placement within the Church/Sophia as its heart or personal center points more specifically to her role in the salvation of others and their acquisition of a purified heart. Mary is more than just an exemplar of holiness; she is the link between Creator and creation and is the “beginning of the world in its purification.”119 What makes possible the salvation of a human person is precisely what the Mother of God gives to that person, the grace necessary to achieve “virginity of soul.”120 Nevertheless, it is through Mary that people perceive Sophia and are purified of their sins. The invocation for Mary to “save us” in the divine liturgy and her placement on the iconostasis adjacent to Christ “as though equivalent to the place of the Lord” provides Florensky with evidence for his opinion.121 Nevertheless, albeit a member of the Church, Mary is above the Church and all of the saints. She stands in a unique and privileged place above even the angels122 and at the boundary of creation and God. Her place above the angels is significant because it denotes her unique privilege. Florensky is not deviating from the Orthodox tradition since she is proclaimed as “more honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim” in the liturgy of John Chrysostom.123 However, in doing so he places Mary outside of redeemed humanity, since in his account of deification, especially after the General Resurrection, deification consists in some kind of unity with one’s prototype or logos in Sophia, which are our guardian angels.124 The implication is that Mary’s redemption cannot consist simply in union with her prototype/guardian angel since she is above all the angels, even the highest of the angelic court. Florensky does not theologize about Mary’s superiority here.125 Nevertheless, as the bearer of Sophia, Mary stands between God and humankind. She is “the center of creaturely life, the point at which earth touches heaven.”126

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

65

Immaculate Mary Unlike Solov’ev, Florensky does not accept the Immaculate Conception. He rejects the dogma as “crude and rationalistic,” but which nevertheless expresses a truth.127 Following St. Seraphim’s teaching about “angels of the flesh,” Florensky contends that there are various races of humankind, some who retained the purity of Adam and Even in Eden and some who did not.128 Florensky writes “[a]ll creation is corrupted, but in some the corruption is deeper than in others.”129 Mary is a product of this pure race. This does not necessitate that she was conceived without sin, but rather that the original sin’s effects are minimized on her.130 What exactly this means, and how this can be maintained given the liturgical witness of the Orthodox Church that stresses Mary’s sinlessness is not discussed here. Bulgakov will take up these ambiguities in The Burning Bush as well as offer a fuller exposition of her spiritual genealogy.

Bulgakov and his predecessors Bulgakov and Solov’ev Bulgakov follows Solov’ev closely in his stress on Mary’s archetypical feminine function.131 Like Solov’ev, together Christ and Mary reveal the image of God in its fullness as understood as male and female. Bulgakov, however, bases his thought in the Christian Scriptures as opposed to gnostic speculations about an eschatological reunion of the sexes present in Solov’ev. The biblical verse Bulgakov uses in The Burning Bush to justify his position is: “there is neither male nor female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).132 Mary in his account gives to Christ her femininity, which Christ in his perfect masculinity lacks. Note that like Solov’ev, Bulgakov stresses the exclusive masculinity of Christ. This, of course, follows from the interpretive tradition of treating masculinity as an activity; since the Logos is an active hypostasis and Christ is the Logos incarnate, Christ must incarnate as a male hypostasis. Given Solov’ev’s stress on Christ’s masculinity and his androgynous eschatology, Mary’s relevance is that she represents the passive, feminine humanity, which Christ redeemed. Bulgakov, however, rejects Solov’ev’s eschatological sexual reunion and stresses the actual bisexuality of humanity. Although he retains Solov’ev’s archetypical language about Mary’s femininity, and that Mary realizes the “divine sonship” for women,133 Mary’s relevance extends beyond the female gender since all men and women are feminine in some respect. In this way, Bulgakov avoids Solov’ev’s male chauvinism that defines women as “only the complement of Man.”134 Nevertheless, Bulgakov’s stress on Christ’s absolute masculinity and the bisexuality of the human race, including Mary, raises theological problems for Bulgakov that I will address in Chapter 5.

66

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

Another important similarity between Bulgakov and Solov’ev is their mutual insistence on Mary’s role in Christ’s humanity. For Solov’ev, Mary provides an essential function for Christ insofar as she gives to Christ a human nature that is prepared for the Incarnation. In this way, Mary is the World-Soul united with Sophia. Likewise, Bulgakov treats Mary as Sophia realized in Sophia’s creaturely form.135 The manner in which Bulgakov and Solov’ev express how Mary attains this state is different. While Solov’ev takes recourse in the Immaculate Conception and only alludes to a theology of heredity, Bulgakov explains, following Florensky, that her sinlessness from conception was the result of the accomplishments of her ancestors. However, a significant point of departure is their portrayal of Mary. Unlike Solov’ev, who depersonalizes Mary and treats her solely as the idealized women, Bulgakov stresses her unique and heroic accomplishments. Bulgakov interestingly rejects the Immaculate Conception on this account, since it does not do justice to Mary’s personal accomplishments. Catholic Mariology, for Bulgakov, fails to consider an adequate Sophiology that expresses the divinehuman synergy and the freedom of the human person involved in this account. On the other hand, Solov’ev’s depersonalized account of Mary allows him to freely appropriate the Immaculate Conception because it confirms his essentialist interpretation of Mary.

Bulgakov and Florensky There are ample similarities in the Mariology of Florensky and Bulgakov. The most important similarity is their pneumatological interpretation of the Mother of God. Here Bulgakov appropriates his teacher’s thought that Mary is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit136 and clarifies what this means. Bulgakov explains the specifics that are absent in Florensky’s account of Mary. For Bulgakov, Mary is not the incarnation of the Holy Spirit, but rather the Holy Spirit completely penetrates her hypostasis.137 However, the similarities do not end here. Bulgakov repeats the three acclamations I mentioned in my summary of Florensky’s thought. Bulgakov, for instance, without ever mentioning Florensky, follows Florensky’s interpretation of virginity and beauty as subjective spiritual states. Like Florensky, Bulgakov treats Mary as “beauty of holiness.”138 Beauty has an experiential function that connotes truth and purity, and it is intimately related to virginity. Bulgakov writes that virginity “is a perfect orientation towards God in the absence of any multicentricity, destroying its integrity, throwing it into disorder.”139 However, whereas Florensky stresses the virginity of Mary, Bulgakov emphasizes the intimate relationship between virginity and motherhood.140 Bulgakov plays on the double meaning of virginity as lack of sex and sinfulness, and he argues that the virginal conception of Christ reveals God’s original plan for motherhood as a virginal state.141 The fact that Mary was a virgin but also the mother of Jesus is not a contradiction in terms.

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

67

More on this will be explained in the next chapter. Nevertheless, Bulgakov maintains Florensky’s position on the special saints as Seraphim of Sarov, who abide in a special virginal state in relation to Mary. However, Bulgakov interprets the “race of Mary” to mean those who bear the Spirit as Mary bears the Spirit.142 Bulgakov in effect expands Florensky’s idea to include all disciples; this, of course, does not deny that there are different degrees of virginity and holiness among Christ’s disciples. Moreover, following both Solov’ev and Florensky, Bulgakov argues that Mary is Sophia insofar as she is a deified creation or Sophia in its creaturely form perfected.143

Conclusion Given the fact that Bulgakov considered both Solov’ev and Florensky his teachers and openly appropriated much of their thought, there is little reason to doubt that Bulgakov appropriated their ideas on Mary and expanded their thoughts to suit his needs. How conscious Bulgakov was of this is not entirely clear. However, reading Bulgakov in this context allows us to see more clearly the genesis of his Mariology. It also provides us with a background to understand many of his ideas that his Orthodox contemporaries will reject as an innovation because they lack a strong patristic basis (e.g., treatment of Mary as the manifestation of the Holy Spirit and his stress on sexuality). Nevertheless, Bulgakov does not simply expand their ideas and correct inadequacies, (e.g., Florensky’s inordinate stress on Mary’s virginity and Solov’ev’s inordinate stress on Mary’s passivity). Bulgakov writes unique reflections on the Mother of God.

Notes 1 Bulgakov, BB, p. 3. 2 Bulgakov begins and ends most of his books with a prayer from the liturgy or a biblical verse. He ends his final chapter of The Burning Bush with “Most Holy Theotokos: save us!” Afterwards, he writes “Summer 1924.” (Bulgakov, BB, p. 114.) In his magnum opus, The Bride of the Lamb Bulgakov begins and ends his book with Revelation 22:17, 20 that, for Bulgakov, is a referent to Mary’s role in the eschaton. Mary is the “Wife and Bride of the Lamb.” (Bulgakov, BL, p. xviii.) 3 Aspects of Bulgakov’s Mariology that are most clearly elucidated in later works, such as Mary’s role in the Last Judgment explicated in The Bride of the Lamb, elaborate ideas found in The Burning Bush. 4 Bulgakov, UF, pp. 280–283. 5 Ibid., p. 293. 6 The notable difference between The Burning Bush and Unfading Light is Bulgakov’s corrected Sophiology which drops any suggestion that Sophia was a “fourth hypostasis” of the Trinity. 7 Aidan Nichols, Light from the East: Authors and Themes in Orthodox Theology, (London: Sheed & Ward, 1999), p. 16. 8 Filaret of Moscow is an interesting manualist because he sought to recover the eastern identity of Russian theology that was lost after the westernization of Russian culture and theology due in part to the reforms of Peter the Great. (Cf.

68

9 10

11 12 13 14

15 16

17 18 19 20

21

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov Georges Florovsky, “The Legacy and Task of Orthodox Theology,” (Anglican Theological Review 31 (1949): p. 68).) Cf. Oravecz, p. 86. The Russian manuals of theology were not unlike Catholic manuals of theology produced in the eighteenth century. This should not be surprising as the Petrine Reforms in the eighteenth century resulted in the appropriation of scholasticism by Russian seminaries. (Cf., Orthodox Constructions of the West, Edited by George E. Demacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou, (New York: Fordham University Press, 2013).) Bulgakov, BB, p. 3. Cf., Ibid., p. 5. Bulgakov, Sophia, pp. 11–12. Although Bulgakov acknowledges the influence of Solov’ev, he is critical of his gnostic tendencies. However, Bulgakov positively evaluates Florensky. (Cf. Thomas Schipflinger, Sophia-Maria: A Holistic Vision of Creation, (York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser, 1998), p. 276.) Charles Graves, “The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Sergius Bulgakov,” (Ph.D. diss., Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1972), p. 9. The only scholar to date who has published on this influence is Bernard Schultz; however, Schultz fails to notice the influence of Florensky on Bulgakov, explicating only Solov’ev’s influence on both theologians. In his article, “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe” Schultze notes that Sophianic Mariology was initiated by Solov’ev and continued by Florensky and Bulgakov. (Bernard Schultze S.J., “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe” in Maria, Études sur la Sainte Vierge, Edited by Hubert du Manoir S.J., (Paris: Beauchesne, 1961), p. 229.) He argues that both authors, Bulgakov and Florensky, incorporate Solov’ev’s ideas that Mary is the heart of the Church, the personification of Sophia, and his emphasis on the icon of Novgorod. (Ibid., p. 238.) However, he does not examine Florensky’s influence on Bulgakov. Like Florensky and Solov’ev, Bulgakov bases his speculations on the liturgy, iconography, and cathedrals dedicated to divine Sophia in Kiev, Susdal, and Novgorod. (Schipflinger, p. 278, n. 51.) Cf. Brandon Gallaher, “Antinomism, Trinity and the Challenge of Solov’evan Pantheism in the Theology of Sergij Bulgakov,” (Stud East Eur Thought 64 (2012): pp. 205–225), p. 206. Recently the letters and discussions between the members were published in Bratstvo sviatoi Sofii. Materialy i Dokumenty, (Moscow: Russkii Put’; Paris: YMCA Press, 2000). A cursory reading of both their lives and thoughts reveal ample similarities. Both Solov’ev and Bulgakov rejected Orthodoxy, came to terms with Sophia through religious experience, flirted with the idea of becoming Catholic (Solov’ev eventually converted to the Russian Catholic Church. He is considered by Russian Catholics or Russian Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome to be the “Newman of Russia”), and of course developed the Russian devotion to Sophia as a feminine personality personified in the Mother of God. Though mostly summarizing Evtuhov’s research, Pramuk gives a concise and well-written summary of their mystical experiences. (Christopher Pramuk, Sophia: The Hidden Christ of Thomas Merton, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2009), pp. 217–228.) In a lecture on August Comte, Solov’ev links his doctrine of Sophia with the icon of Sophia in Novgorod. He writes: “Who is it who sits there in royal dignity on the throne, if not Holy Wisdom, the true and pure ideal humanity itself, the highest and all-inclusive “morphe” (Greek: form) as well as the living soul of nature and the cosmos, eternally bound to God, who unites everything

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31 32 33

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

42

69

existing in the temporal world in Her.” Edith Klun, Natur, Kunst und Liebe in der Philosophie Wladimir Solovjews, eine religionsgeschtliche Untersuchung, (Munich: Otto Sagner, 1965), p. 273, quoted in Schipflinger, p. 250. Groberg, “The Eternal Feminine,” p. 84. Vladimir Solov’ev, Lectures on Divine Humanity, Translated by Peter Zouboff, (San Rafael, CA: Semantron, 2007), p. 146. Cf. Zouboff, p. 53. Schipflinger, p. 249. Valliere, MRT, pp. 157, 159. Schipflinger, p. 249. Solov’ev’s view of Sophia smacks of determinism since creation is a necessity for God. Gallaher argues that Bulgakov attempts to correct this through his use of antinomy. (Gallaher, “There Is Freedom,” p. 46.) Maria Carlson, “Gnostic Elements in the Cosmogony of Vladimir Solov’ev” in Russian Religious Thought, Edited by Judith Deutsch Kornblatt and Richard F. Gustafson, pp. 149–167, (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996), June 12, 2012, www.american-buddha.com/lit.Solov’ev.gnosticelements.htm; Cf. Richard F. Gustafson, “Solov’ev’s Doctrine of Salvation” in Russian Religious Thought, Edited by Judith Deutsch Kornblatt and Richard F. Gustafson, pp. 31–48, (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996), p. 33. Vladimir Soloyvov, Russia and the Universal Church, Translated by Herbert Rees, (London: The Cenetary Press, 1948), p. 171. Cf. Solov’ev, Lectures on Godmanhood, Translated by Peter Zouboff, (San Rafael, CA: Semantron, 2007), p. 195. The sin of the World-Soul caused the sin of Adam. Janko Lavrin, “Vladimir Solovyev: His Teaching and Significance,” (The Slavonic and East European Review 9.26 (1930): pp. 403–410), p. 409. Resorting to myth, Solov’ev states that the World-Soul abandoned the Logos, who ironically gave her the power and autonomy necessary to unite with Sophia. The World-Soul used its autonomy for self-sufficiency. This power bestowed by the Logos lead her to egoism, corruption, and fragmentation. (Solov’ev, Lectures on Godhumanhood, pp. 174–175.) Materiality has a negative connotation since it results from the precosmic sin. (Gustafson, p. 33.) Ibid., p. 44. Matich, Erotic Utopia, p. 71. Gustafson, p. 44. Olga Matich, “The Symbolist Meaning of Love” in Creating Life: The Aesthetic Utopia of Russian Modernism, Edited by Irina Paperno and Joan Delaney Grossman, pp. 24–50, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), p. 27. Vladimir Solov’ev, “The Meaning of Love” in A Solovyov Anthology, Edited by S. L. Frank, Translated by N. Duddington, (Westport, CT: Westport Publishing 1974), p. 179 referenced in Matich, “The Symbolist Meaning of Love,” p. 30. Solov’ev appropriates a traditional, patriarchal understanding of gender. Cf. Solov’ev, Russia and the Universal Church, p. 168. Solov’ev, moreover, interprets femininity and the experience of females through the visage of masculinity that is never really overcome. In Russia and the Universal Church he writes: “Woman being only the complement of Man, and Society only his extension or total manifestation, there is fundamentally only one human being.” (Solov’ev, Russia and the Universal Church, p. 168.) Cf. Samuel D. Cioran, “Vladimir Solovyov and the Divine Feminine” in Russian Literature Triquarterly, Edited by Carl R. Proffer, pp. 221–238, (Ann Arbor: Ardis Publishers, 1972), p. 224.

70

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

43 Schultze, “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe,” p. 217. Christ, Mary and the Church are the divinized forms of what Solov’ev saw as natural humanity (Man, Woman, and human society). (Cf. Solov’ev, Russia and the Universal Church, p. 168.) 44 Schultze, “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe,” p. 216. 45 Solov’ev, Russia and the Universal Church, p. 170. 46 Solov’ev’s stress on erotic love and the reunification of the sexes was no doubt one of the major reasons why Bulgakov in 1925 in a letter to his friend Georges Florovsky will reject him even though his influence and his general framework remain axiomatic for Bulgakov. For instance, Bulgakov treats Mary as the archetypical feminine and manifestation of Sophia. Moreover, he continues Solov’ev’s tradition that the World-Soul, what he calls creaturely Sophia, must be reunited with God, divine Sophia. Humankind again plays a crucial place in his account; however, unlike Solov’ev, he bases his Sophiology squarely on the biblical and liturgical witness. Thus, gnostic and platonic notions of androgyny are not sources cited in his theological thought during his Paris or Theological period. 47 Solov’ev, Russia and the Universal Church, p. 169. Solov’ev justifies his threefold interpretation on Sophia based on Orthodox usage of Sophia. He writes: “This threefold realization in mankind of the essential Wisdom is a religious truth which Orthodox Christendom professes in its doctrine and displays in its worship.” (Ibid.) 48 Bernard Schultze, S.J., “Vladimirus Solov’ev de Immaculata Conceptione B. M. Virginis” in Virgo Immaculata, Vol. 4, 223–246, Edited by Pontificia Adacemia Mariana Internationalis, (Rome: Academia mariana internationalis, 1955. Rome, 1955), p. 226. This is evident in Solov’ev’s operative analogy of the Earth which brought forth Adam as opposed to New Eve. (Solov’ev, Russia and the Universal Church, p. 168.) 49 Solov’ev, Russia and the Universal Church, pp. 82, 169. 50 Solov’ev writes: “[t]herefore, there must be established in the midst of fallen humanity a single, fixed and impregnable point on which the constructive activity of God may be directly based, a point at which human freedom shall coincide with divine Truth in a composite act absolutely human in its outward form, but divinely infallible in its fundamental character . . . In the creation of the individual physical humanity of Christ the act of the divine omnipotence required for its realization only the supremely passive and receptive self-surrender of feminine nature in the person of the Immaculate Virgin. [Emphasis added] (Solov’ev, Russia and the Universal Church, p. 82.) For Solov’ev, Mary is femininity personified, as she provides a “supremely” passive self-surrender of her feminine nature. Mary in this account is an idealized feminine person as opposed to a historical person. She is first and foremost the feminine manifestation of Sophia. 51 Cf. Schultze, “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe,” p. 217. 52 Solov’ev, Russia and the Universal Church, p. 168. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid., p. 173. 55 Zouboff, p. 63. 56 Schultz demonstrates that Solov’ev’s excessive stress on Mary’s passivity is not always consistent. (Schultze, “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe,” p. 221.) For instance, Solov’ev argues that Mary will judge the angels as well as proclaims her to be the heart of the Church; both of these descriptions denote forms of activity. The inconsistency apparent in Solov’ev’s Mariology is also found in his Sophiology. For Solov’ev, Sophia is primarily a passive, feminine entity; however, as the World-Soul, Sophia rebels and is also active in striving to be reunited with the Logos. (Solov’ev, Lectures on Godhumanhood, p. 178.)

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

71

57 Schultze, “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe,” p. 221. 58 Ibid. 59 Solov’ev argues that Sophia is manifested in three forms: Mary, Christ, and the Church. His basis for this successive manifestation of Sophia is the liturgical association of Sophia with Christ and Mary, and mariological and ecclesiological interpretation of feminine personification of Wisdom in The Book of Wisdom and “the woman clothed with the Sun” from chapter twelve of The Book of Revelation. (Solov’ev, Russia and the Universal Church, p. 169.) 60 Ibid., pp. 46–47. 61 This fourteen-page letter was written in French and published as a pamphlet available to the public. The goal of this pamphlet was to further the relations between the Catholic and Orthodox Church by demonstrating that disunity existed de facto but not de jure. 62 Cf. Groberg, “The Feminine Occult Sophia in the Russian Religious Renessiance,” p. 210; Solov’ev, Russia and the Universal Church, p. 169. 63 Groberg, “The Feminine Occult,” pp. 209–210; Cf. Groberg, “The Eternal Feminine,” p. 84. 64 Pyman, p. 81. 65 Ibid., p. 97. 66 See Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, “The Search for a Russian Orthodox Work Ethic” in Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia, Edited by Edith W. C. Lowes, Samuel D. Kassow, James L. West, pp. 58–74, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), p. 69; Robert Slesinski, Pavel Florensky: A Metaphysics of Love, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984), p. 185. 67 Robert Slesinski, “The Relationship of God and Man in Russian Religious Philosophy from Florensky to Frank,” (St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 36 (1992): pp. 217–235), p. 222. 68 Cf. Johnathan Seiling, “Kant’s Third Antinomy and Spinoza’s Substance in the Sophiology of Florenskii and Bulgakov,” Florensky Conference, Moscow, 2005, pp. 1–2. 69 Pyman, p. 97. 70 Ibid., p. 130. Both theologians later in their career return to the question of the hesychast practice of name worshipping. Florensky’s work that develops his defense of the imiaslavtsy is By the Watershed. Bulgakov develops his defense in The Philosophy of Name. 71 Cf. Seiling, From Antinomy to Sophiology, 218. Also as Bulgakov develops his usage of antinomy, he cites Florensky’s 1908 lecture on the subject, “Kosmologicheskie antinomii Immanuila Kanta: s Prilozheniem èkskursa ob antinomicheskogo razuma.” (Cf. Seiling, From Antinomy to Sophiology, p. 257.) 72 Seiling, From Antinomy to Sophiology, p. 219. 73 Cf. Seiling, “Kant’s Third Antinomy,” p. 5. 74 Florensky, PGT, p. 107. His point is that creation is not deducible from the Creator. To do so without an adequate comprehension of antinomy will result in determinism, which is contrary not only to the Orthodox tradition but also to religious experience. 75 Cf. Slesinski, Pavel Florensky, p. 180. 76 Slesinski, A Metaphysics of Love, p. 169. 77 A persistent critique of Florensky is that he is origenistic in his conception of Sophia. John Meyendorff espouses this position. He wrote, “Like Origen centuries earlier, Florensky considered any real existence to be divine and eternal – not only in its origin but in its subsistence. Thus, the significance of a creation in time is greatly reduced, if not totally suppressed.” (John Meyendorff, “Creation

72

78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

86 87 88 89 90

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov in the History of Orthodox Theology,” (St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 27 (1983): pp. 27–37), p. 31.) Florensky attempts to justify his Orthodoxy by linking his ideas to the liturgy and St. Athanasius. (Slesinski, Metaphysics of Love, p. 176.) (Florensky also brings to his aid Count M.I. Speransky, a contemporary Russian mystic, whose Orthodoxy was confirmed by Bishop Theophanus the Recluse.) (Florensky, PGT, p. 241.) Moreover, Florensky was well aware of the condemnation of the origenistic doctrine of the preexistence of souls and explicitly distances himself from Origen. Unlike Origen, when Florensky speaks of the preexistence of the soul, he does not mean an existence in time. His usage of existence evokes his experience and is therefore a form of existence that is beyond rationality. (Florensky, PGT, p. 247.) The nature of the heresy of preexistence is precisely the overly rationalistic approach to preexistence; he writes “[t]his is the idea contained in the Church’s condemnation of the heretics’ fleshly, rationalistic conception of preexistence.”78 (Ibid.) In footnote 162 on page 545, Florensky clearly differentiates his position from that of the origenists condemned by the sixth ecumenical council by an examination of the canon that condemns only the metempsychosis and metensomatosis but not the supratemporal nature of the human person. To explain the Trinity, Florensky synthesizes a Fichtean analysis of personal identity with St. Bernard’s teaching on the ontological Love of God. (Meerson, p. 130.) Ibid., p. 252. Ibid., p. 324. Ibid., p. 323; Slesinski, A Metaphysics of Love, p. 172. Slesinski, A Metaphysics of Love, p. 173. Although Florensky shares a bisexual interpretation of humankind, he does not stress the importance of sexuality in his Mariology. Thus he does not stress Mary’s femininity. Cf. Schultze, “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe,” p. 226; Florensky, PGT, p. 265. He adds that the scholastic understanding of the dogma of Mary’s virginity lags behind the empirical experience of this dogma. Florensky, PGT, p. 260. In the last section of letter ten, Florensky provides an important analysis of the different Sophia icons. He distinguishes between three types of Sophia icons: Angel, Church, and Mary. The first type is the Novgorod icon, which is generally interpreted christologically, and it depicts the Sophiaangel between Christ, who is above, and the Mother of God and St. John the Baptist, who are below Sophia. The second icon type portrays Sophia as the Church that usually entails a depiction of Christ on the cross, representing the Church as proceeding from Christ’s body. Note again that the Mother of God is present at the right of Christ, while John the Baptist is present at his left. The third type, also known as the Kiev type, is explicitly mariological since it depicts Mary as Sophia in the center of the icon, depicting her intercessory role below Christ in the heavens. Slesinski, A Metaphysics of Love, p. 184. This was no doubt influenced by his affinity to the slavophiles who emphasized integral knowledge (Robert Slesinski, “Fr. Paul Florensky: A Profile,” (St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 26.1 (1982): pp. 67–88), p. 70.) For Florensky, art, but more specifically iconography, has an ontological significance because it reveals the truth behind the image. Robert Slesinski, “Fr. Paul Florensky: A New Bibliographical Entries,” (St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 30.3 (1986): pp. 162–171), p. 167. Integral knowledge can only be attained through antinomic structure of the mind. (Slesinski, “Profile,” p. 77.)

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov 91 92 93 94 95 96

97 98 99 100 101 102 103

104 105 106 107

108 109 110

111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120

73

Florensky, PGT, p. 243. Ibid. Ibid., p. 253. Ibid., p. 259. Ibid., p. 257. Though Florensky does not theologize on this point, we can see an overlap in the mission of the Holy Spirit and the vocation of the Holy Mother of God, since the Holy Spirit as beauty extends to the creaturely world of which Mary is the most beautiful creation. Florensky, PGT, p. 256. It is not clear if he is suggesting something more than simply a theophany of the Holy Spirit. Florensky, PGT, p. 253. Ibid., p. 254. Ibid., p. 253. Florensky’s teaching on Mary’s spiritual virginity is based on the teaching of Clement of Rome. (Cf. Clement of Rome, Epistles on Virginity, Epistle 1, Ch. 5 (Tr. Kiev. Dukh. Ak., 1869, Vol 2, p. 205 cited in Florensky, PGT, p. 255.) Ibid., p. 258. Schultze makes a persceptive observation about Florensky’s Sophiology based on this point. He argues what differentiates him from Greek Sophiology is his stress on virginity and chastity as opposed to contemplation as a means to encounter Sophia. (Schultze, “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe,” p. 229.) Florensky, PGT, p. 255. Ibid., p. 258. Ibid. The correlation that Florensky makes between angels and saints will prove to be indispensible for Bulgakov. Bulgakov in 1929 authors a book on this subject entitled Jacob’s Ladder. Compare, for instance, Bulgakov’s position on the coangelicity of man and insistence that every angel contains a prototype of created being, and acts like a guardian for that creature, and thus share in this earthly ministry (Bulgakov, JL, p. 66.) with Florensky’s insistence that “Man’s Divine prototype, his Guardian Angel, is preeminently the guardian of man’s purity, of his integrity, chastity.” (Florensky, PGT, p. 256.) These earthly angels “come directly out of Eden, as it were, like children of the primordial couple.” (Florensky, PGT, p. 258.) Florensky, PGT, p. 253. La Sophia, c’est l’Esprit Saint déifiant la créature. Mais l’Esprit se manifeste dans la créature par le fait qu’elle est pure, chaste, humblement immaculée, il se manifeste par la Virginité. (Schultze, “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe,” p. 224.) Florensky, PGT, p. 253. Ibid. Schultze, “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe,” p. 227. Ibid., p. 225. Florensky, PGT, p. 259. Ibid., p. 254. Ibid. Ibid., p. 257. Ibid., p. 256. Schultze, “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe,” p. 227; Florensky, PGT, p. 255. For Florensky, Mary is the “Dispencer of God’s Grace.” (Florensky, PGT, p. 256.) She is the means through which the Church dispenses grace understood as “Life, Eternity, and the gifts of the Spirit.” (Ibid.)

74

Russian Mariology and Bulgakov

121 Schultze, “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe,” p. 226; Florensky, PGT, p. 265. 122 Florensky, PGT, p. 259. 123 According to the Orthodox tradition, the seraphim and cherubim are the highest of the angelic orders closest to God. 124 Florensky, PGT, p. 256. 125 Ibid., p. 267. 126 Ibid., p. 260. 127 Ibid., p. 552, n. 640. 128 Schultze, “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe,” p. 226. 129 Florensky, PGT, p. 259. 130 Cf. Ibid. 131 Bulgakov, BB, pp. 82–83. 132 Cf. Ibid., p. 83. 133 Ibid., p. 103. 134 Solov’ev, Russia and the Universal Church, p. 168. 135 According to Bulgakov, while the World-Soul is creaturely Sophia, Sophia, as Solov’ev understood it, is divine Sophia. 136 Florensky, PGT, p. 259. 137 Bulgakov, BB, p. 168, n. 13. 138 Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 4, Sec. 3, Loc 4196–4197 of 6301. This beautyholiness motif also extends to his ecumenical activity. Bulgakov stated: The Church “desires a great Christian unity in worship, but hopes for it not so much through the common acceptance of liturgical forms as through the energy of love, drawn out by the irresistible attraction of spiritual beauty. The attraction of the spiritual beauty will ultimately lead towards the unity in worship of all Christians.” H. N. Bate, ed., Faith and Order: Proceedings of the World Conference Lausanne, August 3–21, (London: Student Christian Movement, 1927), p. 209. 139 Bulgakov, “Hypostasis and Hypostaticity,” p. 35. 140 His stress on Mary’s motherhood allows Bulgakov to ground his speculations in the tradition of the Orthodox Church (i.e., the teachings of the Council of Ephesus). 141 Cf. Bulgakov, BB, pp. 93–94. 142 Bulgakov writes: “[t]he spirit-bearer himself, the saint, was expressly chosen by the Spirit-Bearer, the Most Holy Mother of God, who proclaimed about him that he is ‘of Our kind,’ and appeared to him, together with the Forerunner, the first apostles Peter and John, and the martyrs and saints, twelve times during his life – more frequently than She appeared to any other of the saints.” (Sergius Bulgakov, Churchly Joy: Orthodox Devotions for the Church Year, Translated by Boris Jakim, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), p. 47.) In the same work Bulgakov explains that “our kind” refers to the saints, who dwell in the world amongst tyrannies such as the Soviet state. (Ibid., p. 50.) St. Seraphim with the saints are Russia’s hope for the “new joy of the resurrection.” (Ibid.) In his early work On Holy Relics (1918) he defines sainthood, the goal of the spiritual life as “God-bearingness or Spirit-bearingness.” (Sergius N. Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles: Two Theological Essays, Translated by Boris Jakim, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011), p. 319. Kindle Digital File.) 143 Bulgakov, “Hypostasis and Hypostaticity,” p. 34.

4

Theological anthropology and Mary

Introduction Whereas the previous chapters situated Bulgakov in contexts and examined the sources and influences of his thought, this chapter begins the first extended discussion of his theology. Theological anthropology is a central theme in his Mariology. This is for good reason as his sophiological system makes sense of the divine-human relationship that pervades the Christian narrative from the creation of the world to the Incarnation and redemption of humankind. This chapter is a preliminary investigation into his theological anthropology that will provide us with the background to appreciate his unique Mariology. For this purpose, this chapter has been divided into several sections that will examine important ideas, including the role of gender (particularly femininity) in his anthropology, the role of the Holy Spirit in the economy of salvation, the original sin, heredity, and grace. Bulgakov’s stress on Mary’s femininity and relationship to the Holy Spirit as well as Mary’s unique role in salvation history and interaction with the Church only make sense when we understand the meaning of humankind before and after the original sin, the relationship of the Trinity to humankind, and God’s assistance. Only after explicating these themes will we be able to flesh out what Bulgakov means when he calls Mary the “soul of the world” and the “pneumatophoric hypostasis.”

Image of God Discussions regarding sexuality during the Russian Religious Renaissance had a decisive influence on Bulgakov. Bulgakov’s appropriation of Russian ideas about sexuality is nowhere more evident than in his appropriation of spiritual bisexuality in his Unfading Light (1917).1 However, it is important to note that in Unfading Light, Bulgakov distanced himself from gnostic and erotic androgynous interpretations of human sexuality.2 Nevertheless, the ideas he espouses in Unfading Light regarding spiritual bisexuality or human androgyny with little correction is employed throughout his

76

Theological anthropology and Mary

theological period (1925–1944). In The Burning Bush, Jacob’s Ladder, as well The Bride of Lamb, all of which include extensive sections on theological anthropology, employ the idea of the human androgyny presented in Unfading Light or what he later refers to as the male and female principles within the hypostatic spirit.3 Readers of Bulgakov can easily gloss over the role of gender in his thought, but it is important to note that for Bulgakov sexuality is not simply a characteristic of a human person but rather expresses a spiritual mode of being.4 To be made in the image of God is to be made an androgynous being or to use Bulgakov’s term, a spiritually bisexual (dukhovnaya dvupolost) being.5 For a modern reader, defining human beings in terms of their sexuality may seem arbitrary and outmoded; however, for Bulgakov sexuality was a defining characteristic of what it meant to be human; to his credit, gender essentialist theories were in vogue among the Russian religious writers, but as Regula Zwahlen notes, influential psychologists such as C.G. Jung advocated a form of gender essentialism. Jung argued that every person contained an anima and animus within his or her psyche. However, the ultimate vindication for Bulgakov’s gender essentialism was Gen 5:2, “He created them male and female.” This verse functions as a proof text for Bulgakov: gender is constitutive to being made in the image of God. Nonetheless, before explicating his theology of humankind as the image of the image of God, it is important to note that there is no clear consensus among contemporary scholars on Bulgakov’s anthropology. Although Evgenii Bershtein,6 Regula M. Zwahlen,7 and Brenda Meehan8 argue for some form of a bisexual interpretation of Bulgakov’s theology of the image of God in humankind, John Milbank,9 Aiden Nichols,10 Bernice Rosenthal,11 and Celia Deane-Drummond12 interpret Bulgakov’s theology of the image of God in humankind within a traditional essentialist context. By a “traditional essentialist context” I mean that they argue Bulgakov equates biological men and women with masculinity and femininity respectively; in other words, males are exclusively masculine while females are exclusively feminine, which is a de facto denial of Bulgakov’s doctrine of spiritual bisexuality. In defense of this position, Bulgakov does not explain in detail his spiritual bisexuality in either his minor or major trilogies. To complicate matters, Bulgakov argues that the image of God as male and female is fully expressed in Christ and Mary respectively, which is indicative of an essentialist binary treatment of sex or gender.13 In addition, Bulgakov consistently vacillates between a bisexual and a binary interpretation of sexuality within the same text.14 This is evident in Bulgakov’s exegesis of Gen 1:27 in The Burning Bush; here he defines the male and female principle as Adam and Eve,15 which indicates an essentialist treatment of humankind (i.e., Adam and Eve are the archetypal male and female). However, he qualifies this binary statement with a statement indicating spiritual bisexuality: “[t]he male is truth in beauty, the female is beauty in truth: truth and beauty are indivisible and

Theological anthropology and Mary

77

of one essence, but at the same time they are differentiated as two images of the one principle.”16 What is important is that truth and beauty are not separate but interrelated and present in both sexes, and what differentiates the sexes is a stress on either principle. While males have a dominant aspect of truth, females have a dominant aspect of beauty. Nevertheless, truth is not without beauty and beauty without truth. This is reminiscent of a spiritual bisexual interpretation of humankind. In The Bride of the Lamb, Bulgakov provides one of his clearest theological expressions about how this spiritual bisexuality works. The impetus for this clarification is his quandary: “If Christ is the all-hypostasis for all of humankind; does this not annul all of the female hypostases?”17 Bulgakov makes the perceptive point that Christ’s saving work extends to women because women are incorporated into Christ through their shared male nature. Bulgakov writes: “[t]here are two relations here: centrifugal and centripetal. And both are necessarily united in each human hypostasis, however they are united in different tonalities, with the love of Christ for the Church, or the Church for Christ, being dominant” (emphasis added).18 His answer to his question rests on an important distinction he makes between the tonalities of each sex. In this context, the Church and Christ are used as euphemisms for femininity and masculinity respectively. Thus, the individual human hypostasis contains both genders (tonalities); however, one gender is dominant.19 If there is any doubt that Bulgakov’s anthropology appropriates spiritual bisexuality, the recent publications of his unpublished works, “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe v Bozhestve” (1921) and “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe” (1921) should dispel this doubt. In these works, Bulgakov states unequivocally that the Son and the Holy Spirit in their vocations and hypostatic distinctions reflect human spiritual bisexuality in God.20 What is important about these texts is that they demonstrate that sexuality was important enough to Bulgakov that he penned these treatises. They demonstrate that for Bulgakov how sexuality related to humankind and God was a work in progress. Nevertheless, we will have to wait more than a decade until the publication of The Comforter for Bulgakov to work out the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son within the context of spiritual bisexuality. In The Comforter Bulgakov insists that the Son and Holy Spirit has a “parallel in the bi-unity of the human spirit.”21 According to Bulgakov, while the Son is the eternal truth in beauty, the Holy Spirit is the eternal beauty in truth. It is an ineffable relationship that is mirrored in created being through the male and female hypostasis. Only in this sense can we meaningfully speak of God as bisexual.22 Males and females reciprocate the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit, and in so doing humankind exhibits a multiplicity amid unity. In contemporary parlance “bisexuality” is a loaded word that is immediately associated with LGBTQ rights; however, for Bulgakov, bisexuality23 carried no connotation of the sort. Bulgakov had little interest in sexual expression in material existence but rather sought to speak about sexuality primarily within the context of spirituality, the afterlife, and the resurrection. In Jacob’s Ladder,

78

Theological anthropology and Mary

Bulgakov explicitly situates sexuality outside of its material expression. Intercourse or sexual attraction were indicative of the “bodily captivity of gender” and thirst for spiritual completion. These were not necessarily evils but rather realities that frustrated the angelic-like existence for human sexuality intended by God. After the eschaton, human beings will be “like angels” that remain male and female without the desire for sex.24 Nevertheless, how the male and female principles relate to the male and female hypostasis remains ambiguous in his thought. This ambiguity is somewhat expected, for by linking humankind, particularly the maleness and femaleness of the human race, to the Trinity, he subtly imports the trinitarian antinomies, particularly how God is a multiplicity amid unity, to humankind. The result is that human gender is an antinomy that precludes clear and consise definition. This gender antinomy is apparent in Bulgakov’s dual usage of sexuality as an expression of our shared nature (i.e., spiritual bisexuality) and as an expression of what differentiates males from females (i.e., essentialist treatment of the sexes). Bulgakov bases this interpretation on the first chapter of the Book of Genesis25 (cf., Gen 1:26–27). According to Bulgakov, God creates each human person with two principles (i.e., spiritually bisexual) and creates humankind as two separate hypostases, the male and female hypostasis. What distinguishes man from woman, therefore, is a priority of either the feminine or masculine principle. In other words, each human person is a consubstantial unity of masculinity and femininity.26 What we experience as maleness and femaleness are the predominance of either the male or female principle. In Unfading Light Bulgakov provides a clear expression of spiritual bisexuality: “[a] woman has a male principle, but in her own way, just as a man has a female principle.”27 It is clear that spiritual bisexuality is a thoroughgoing theme in his theological writings, even though Bulgakov will use euphemisms such as truth and beauty to replace male and female principles.28 Nevertheless, in his Sophia: The Wisdom of God which Bulgakov published as a succinct overview of his Sophiology to demonstrate that his Sophiology was orthodox, he reverts back to his anthropology developed in Unfading Light: humans are made in the image and likeness of God in a twofold embodiment, the masculine and female principles . . . the spirit of every human being combines elements of this dual principle, though of course in different ways and in different proportionalities.29 Bulgakov’s idea that “the spirit of every human being combines elements of this dual principle” is evident of the continued influence of his theory of spiritual bisexuality appropriated from the Russian Religious Renaissance on his theology. The reason why Bulgakov never drops his theory of spiritual bisexuality is that he believed it to be evident in the creation of humankind.

Theological anthropology and Mary

79

Take for instance Bulgakov’s exegesis of the second creation story (Gen 2). The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib, who complements Adam, is a proof text that evidences spiritual bisexuality. Bulgakov interprets this second creation account as an inversion of the sacrament of marriage whereby two become one flesh. In this instance, the one flesh becomes two persons. Eve’s creation from Adam’s body evidences that Eve and therefore women are not new creations, but rather intimately connected with men. Bulgakov does not mean that women are derivatives of men. In fact, he is adamant that misogynist ideas that women are lesser beings are not based in the biblical text.30 What he intends to explicate is that men and women are intimately connected and complement one another. Adam and Eve and by consequence humankind are “two-sexed, but precisely because they appear as a single-sexed entity, human beings also have this sexual duality in their spirit, and know the erotic tension as the deepest foundation of both creation and creative activity.”31 Adam must retain a bisexual nature, for if his femininity was entirely exhausted in the creation of Eve, the erotic tension would no longer exist in him. They would have become two completely separated entities,32 which does not capture the biblical narrative that God created Eve out of Adam as his helper, with whom she was to be united as one flesh (Gen 2:20–24). “Like can only know like,” and for Bulgakov, it follows that Adam must remain feminine and Eve must remain masculine in some manner in order to retain the unity of nature. Nevertheless, Bulgakov appropriates a traditional patriarchal understanding of gender to his definitions of the masculine and feminine principles.33 Yet, as Rosenthal notes, Bulgakov opposes “‘false equality,’ the blurring of gender distinctions, and considered feminism a cover for ‘sexual nihilism.’”34 Bulgakov would have most likely embraced recent research that tacitly supports the gender binary by locating sexual difference in biological difference,35 as he never exhibited recalcitrance toward the differences between the sexes perpetuated in the Orthodox tradition. Rather his interest was how men and women are by their shared nature equal partners but different. Even though Bulgakov treats humankind as bisexual, there is no indication in either his published works or autobiographical reflections that he took issue with gender stereotypes. Thus, he unequivocally appropriates stereotypes into his understanding of sexuality; he writes that male principle is “the primacy of reason and will over sense” and the female principle is “the primacy of feeling, of experience over reason and will.”36 Even though his definitions refer to activity that is indicative of descriptions of gender as opposed to sex, Bulgakov makes no such distinction. This is not entirely unexpected because there were no words in the Russian language that allowed him to do so. Moreover, differentiating gender from sex is a recent phenomenon. The term pol that Bulgakov uses connotes both biological sex and gender. Nevertheless, he delineates between sex [pol] and sexuality [seksual’nost’]. Sexuality in his theological works is negatively expressed as lust, which is associated with the sexual act.37 Sex is a referent for biological sex and gender identity.

80

Theological anthropology and Mary

Image of God as the image of the Son To be made in the image of God is in some sense to be made in the image of the Trinity. Bulgakov writes: “[t]he fullness of the image of God in the male-female or female-male spirit of a human has a foundation in the Divine Triunity.”38 Nevertheless, following the Orthodox tradition, he insists that the Son is the image of God. The Son is the Word, who contains the content of divine wisdom. Our relationships with God and the world are premised upon our relationship with the Son, as the Son not only created us in his image39 (Jesus Christ is the image of God),40 but he reveals God the Father to us (i.e., Matthew 11:27).41 Godhumanhood therefore primarily involves the Second person of the Trinity. This correlation between humankind and the Son is the basis for Bulgakov’s insistence that the ability to incarnate is a hypostatic property of the Son.42 The fact that we are created in the image of the Trinity is secondary. Since God is a trihypostatic person, every action of God must include the Trinity of persons, and thus the creation of humankind involves the Father and the Holy Spirit in addition to the Son. However, since the Father is the “omni-causative” hypostasis who transcends Godhumanhood and who is directly imaged in the Son, it is not proper for Him to be imaged in the image of the image, humankind. Father does not reveal himself, but rather the Son reveals him. However, the Son does not take part in this revelation of the Father alone. The baptism of Christ and the Pentecost reveal that the Holy Spirit is not only intimately connected to the Son but similar to the Son, the Holy Spirit hypostatically enters the economy of salvation. Bulgakov, therefore, broadens his theology of the image of God to include the Holy Spirit. The upshot of including the Holy Spirit in his theology of image of God is that it serves to strengthen his theological anthropology in as much as it explains why humankind was created twosexed as opposed to single-sexed (after the Son alone) or tri-sexed (after the Trinity). Men and women are then created in the image of what he calls the “divine Dyad,” the Son and Holy Spirit. The inclusion of the Holy Spirit in the image of God helps to explain Bulgakov’s bisexual interpretation of humankind. Since the Son is the primary hypostasis of our imaging, both males and females must reflect the Son.43 Both sexes also reflect the Holy Spirit. Bulgakov rejects the idea that the Holy Spirit is the image of women and the Son is the image for men. What would result are two separate economies of salvation. Given Bulgakov’s trinitarian theology that stresses the interconnectivity of each person of the Trinity and his pneumatology that stresses the role of the Holy Spirit as manifesting the Son’s work, this is not possible. His doctrine of spiritual bisexuality allows him to maintain that both sexes are primarily made in the image of the Son, participating in His Godhumanhood, but nonetheless, share in the image of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the image of God is reflected in the male and female hypostasis as well as in their spiritual bisexual, sophianic being.44 Given Bulgakov’s dynamic view of nature as expressed in his doctrine of Sophia, this

Theological anthropology and Mary

81

is not illogical or a misuse of gender. Recall that Bulgakov rejects abstracting the hypostasis from its nature or vice versa. Sophia-ousia and hypostasis exist in an organic relationship, and their difference lies solely in that a hypostasis is consciousness while nature is the content of that consciousness. What makes a hypostasis male or female is how the hypostasis hypostatizes or becomes conscious of their bi-sexual nature.45 This, of course, is analogous, not equivocal to the manner in which the Son and Holy Spirit are conscious of their nature. Gender expression in Bulgakov’s thought is more along the lines of a spectrum as opposed to a definitive description. Thus, males have an overabundance of the male principle while females have an overabundance of the female principle within in their shared human nature. Nevertheless to better understand what constitutes men and women as such we must look to the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Image of God as image of the Son and Holy Spirit The personal identity of the Father is the context of his thought on divine Dyad of the Son and the Holy Spirit.46 In his succinct summation of Bulgakov’s thought, Graves writes: “[t]he essence of the personality, according to Bulgakov, the essence of ‘I’, is that it must go outside of itself to find its true nature.”47 In human persons this involves the subject-object relationship. The subject, the “I,” must extend to the object, the “non-I.” The “non-I” does not limit “I,” but rather it is the “objective reality, which becomes for the ‘I,’ by means of a subjective transformation, personal life.”48 In humankind the relationship between subject-object always remains even though the object becomes transparent to the subject, for the object retains its objective quality, never fully consumed by the subject. For God, however, this is not the case. Because God is an absolute subject, God has no need of an object, the “non-I,” outside of Godself for self-realization as a personality.49 To explain this, Bulgakov relies on the trinitarian processions of the Son and Holy Spirit from God the Father. He argues: “the Father only knows Himself in the act of begetting the Word.”50 The Son in turn allows Himself to be the begotten image of the Father, and therefore the Son only knows Himself in the nature of the Father as the revealed image of the Father to the Father. The Father exhausts Himself eternally in the begetting of the Son while the Son exhausts Himself in being begotten from the Father.51 Both Father and Son are completely transparent and exist for one another. This sacrificial procession of begetting and being begotten remains theoretical without the Holy Spirit, who gives “‘reality’ to this union.”52 The Father, not only reveals himself in his ousia-Wisdom through the Son, but he lives in it by the Holy Spirit. And the Son does not only reveal the Father through himself, in his ousia-Wisdom, but again he lives in it by the Holy Spirit.53

82

Theological anthropology and Mary

Because God is the absolute subject, even the life of God in which the mutual indwelling of the Son and the Father occur must be hypostatized.54 This is the function of the Holy Spirit in the immanent Trinity. The Holy Spirit, Bulgakov contends, is precisely the personalized life of God that makes the revelation of Father to Son real.55 Moreover, “[t]he Spirit makes the mutual giving of Father and Son, a giving out, not simply a giving to and an exchange.”56 The potential tragedy of annihilation, whereby the Father extinguishes his existence in his begetting of the Son, is prevented by the Holy Spirit.57 Ultimately, the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father for the Son and can be “understood only in relation to the Father and the Son.”58 Since the begetting of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit occur in one eternal moment, the begetting of the Son by the Father simultaneously involves the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father upon the Son as the Father’s love for his Son. This procession is life-bestowing, since it makes the Son a real, living hypostatic entity separate from the Father.59 On the life-bestowing function of the Holy Spirit, Bulgakov writes, This is Life is, of course, not a mere “property,” which can be communicated (or fail to be communicated); rather, it is hypostatic Life itself, the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and reposes upon the Son. But, in conformity with the intratrinitarian distinctions, life is also the principle that is expressly proper to the Third hypostasis; and John 5:26 refers precisely to the procession of this hypostasis upon the Son and to its reposing upon Him.60 Thus, the Father gives content and purpose to the Son, but the Spirit gives life and autonomy to the Son. In these trinitarian processions of the Son and the Holy Spirit from the Father, Bulgakov’s doctrine of the divine Dyad is forged. The Son and the Holy Spirit reveal the Father in their own way: the Son is the image of the Father as the Father’s ideas, will, or content, and the Holy Spirit is the actualized reality of this content that manifests itself as the Father’s beauty, life, and love. Bulgakov writes, “[i]n the Third hypostasis, God not only knows Himself as the absolute Truth or the Word of all and about all, but He also lives in this hypostasis and feels it, with the reality of the felt truth being beauty.”61 Life is manifested as beauty. Bulgakov explains that the Holy Spirit is love in the context of kenosis: Third hypostasis is hypostatic Love, although deprived of all selfhood. Like the first two hypostases, the Third hypostasis has, in its own hypostatic life, its own kenosis, which consists precisely in hypostatic self-abolition, as it were: By its procession from the Father upon the Son, the Third hypostasis loses itself, as it were, becomes only a copula, the living bridge of love between the Father and the Son, the hypostatic Between. But in this kenosis the Third hypostasis finds itself as the Life of the other hypostases, as the Love of the Others and as the Comfort

Theological anthropology and Mary

83

of the Others, which then becomes for it too its own Comfort, its selfcomfort. In a word, just as birth has both a passive and an active side, so does procession: it is spiration and procession, hypostatic depletion and self-acquisition, kenosis and glorification. The character of the Third hypostasis, of Love, is expressed in this “in-between” being, with the inclusion in it of the hypostases who love and who are loved.62 Together the Son and the Holy Spirit reveal the epistemological (Son) and experiential (Holy Spirit) elements of the Father’s revelation. To further explain his doctrine of the divine Dyad, he looks to the early Syrian tradition and appropriates feminine characteristics to speak about the Holy Spirit.63 Bulgakov, who as a theologian made no formal distinction between theology and mysticism/spirituality, passionately expresses the maternal and feminine function of the Holy Spirit in the inner life of God. The Holy Spirit has a maternal function: the Holy Spirit is the womb of the Son, for the “Logos abides in His [Holy Spirit] bosom”64 and the Holy Spirit “reposes ‘maternally’ on the Word.”65 (Bulgakov’s reintroduction of feminine language into pneumatology will provide a strong basis for his pneumatological Mariology that I will discuss below.) In this way, the Holy Spirit reveals God’s motherhood or daughterhood that is complemented by the Son’s revelation of God’s sonship and fatherhood of the Father. This dyad and its interrelated relationships of the Son and the Holy Spirit are transferred to the economic Trinity.66 In consonance to their hypostatic function, either the Son or the Holy Spirit is the dominant or hypostatically present in the world at a time. The inactive hypostasis in the world is nonetheless present to the active hypostasis in their shared divine Sophia. From the Incarnation until Pentecost, the Son is the dominant hypostasis in the world.67 From the Pentecost until the general Resurrection, the Holy Spirit is the dominant hypostasis in the world. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit and the Son share the same mission of the salvation of the human race; yet they save humankind in different manners according to their hypostatic functions in the immanent Trinity. As the image of the Father, the Son’s mission is primarily the revelation of the Father to humankind; this revelation will inevitably lead to the Son’s Paschal Mystery, Resurrection, and Ascension. The Holy Spirit, as the maternal, life-giving hypostasis, metaphorically gives life to the Son’s revelation of the Father;68 the Holy Spirit gives life to the revelation of the Son by realizing it through the members of the Body of Christ, the Church. Pentecost was the first step of this realization. Note that the hypostatic descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost occurs only after Christ’s Ascension,69 when Christ “acquires a new power – the power to send the Holy Spirit into the world.”70 This is a central event in Bulgakov’s theology because it marks the return of Jesus’s divine power and glory, as well as the deification of his human nature. Given Bulgakov’s anthropology that stresses the ontological connection of humanity, Christ’s glorification means that the beginning of the end has begun for humankind, for all human

84

Theological anthropology and Mary

beings will participate in Christ’s glorified humanity in as much as they will be resurrected and (at least the righteous) will receive deification in body and soul. The Ascension demarcates a new beginning of humanity that will come to fruition only through the maternal vocation of the Holy Spirit. This is the reason why even after witnessing Jesus’s resurrection and spending at least one year with Jesus, the apostles were not authorized to preach the Gospel after the Resurrection until the Pentecost71 (cf. Acts 1:4–5). The Holy Spirit is the activating power of God: the apostles were unable to actualize the mission and teachings of Jesus Christ until the Holy Spirit descended upon them. Moreover, in the absence of Christ who proffered a means to directly communicate with God, as the “connecting hypostasis” who links the Son to the Father through love and life, the Holy Spirit in an analogous manner links the apostles to the Father through Christ. The Holy Spirit manifests/vivifies the reality of the Father’s will as established by Jesus Christ. Therefore, the Spirit is directly responsible for the salvation of the human race. It complements the Son’s mission in salvation history. Rowan Williams eloquently and succinctly expresses the role of the Holy Spirit in Bulgakov’s thought, [the Holy Spirit] gives you not further information, but a deeper, more personal, more immediate penetration into the Christian life . . . the Spirit does not drop new facts into your mind; the Spirit tells you more what it is to have the mind of Christ in your discipleship.72 Accordingly, Christian revelation is a “bi-unique revelation” of Christ and the Holy Spirit.73 Without the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ’s teachings and sacrifice would be merely praiseworthy, but not life-bestowing, incorporating the individual into the Church and imparting salvation. The paschal mystery would have been inconsequential74 or at least the consequence would have ended with Christ’s Ascension to heaven whereby Christ is no longer present on earth. Bulgakov made a fascinating observation about the Holy Spirit in the New Testament that reinforced his pneumatology: although the Holy Spirit is active throughout the New Testament, continually inspiring the members of the early Church community, the Holy Spirit is relatively silent. Holy Spirit is mentioned 264 times in the New Testament, and yet, Acts 8:29 is the only place in the New Testament where the Holy Spirit speaks. Moreover, with exception to the images of “the dove” (Matt 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, John 1:32) and the “tongues of fire” (Acts 2:3) associated with the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit does not incarnate or personally reveal itself. Unlike the Son, who reveals that the Father and he are one (Jn 10:30) and yet he is fully human, the Holy Spirit has no similar revelation. Bulgakov aptly noted that the Holy Spirit’s silence and lack of personal revelation is indicative of its hypostatic function and economic mission. The Son self-manifests, for the Son is the revealed image of the Father. It is appropriate that the Son incarnates

Theological anthropology and Mary

85

and redeems humankind. On the other hand, the Spirit is the means through which this self-manifestation is achieved and received. The complementary relationship of Son to Spirit is reflected in Bulgakov’s theology of the divine Dyad and bears some similarity to traditional gender binary that stresses that males are active and females are passive. Motherhood is a defining characteristic of what it means to be female (at least until the availability of ectogenesis technologies), as only women can give birth to new human life. Since the Holy Spirit is the proto-image for femaleness or femininity, the Holy Spirit is the proto-image of motherhood: the Holy Spirit is divine maternity. Analogically speaking, the Holy Spirit is the Mother of God or the Mother of the Son. More precisely, motherhood is a hypostatic function of the Holy Spirit, and thus the Holy Spirit “maternally repose” on Son within the imminent Trinity, but also within the economic Trinity it “manifests its maternal character” in its life-giving function.75 Although Bulgakov associates Holy Spirit with the feminine maternal experience, this experience is by no means simply a passive experience, for in the economy of salvation, the Holy Spirit always includes a harmonious self-determination. Motherhood involves activity, but it is activity undertaken for the greater good of another, and just as a mother is involved in the raising or rearing of her children, so too is the Holy Spirit involved with the Christian believer. As a mother, the Holy Spirit nourishes her children with grace and the imputation of her gifts. The Spirit gives actual life to the Son’s words. It is a silent mother who works to make what the Son has accomplished through his sacrifice real in the lives of the children of God. The Holy Spirit leads the Spirit’s children to faith in the Son, who himself reveals God the Father. Thus, to take part in the life of the Holy Spirit is to acquire the mind of Christ so that our thoughts, words, and deeds witness to Christ, who in turn reveals God the Father to humankind.76 These dyadic missions of the Son and the Holy Spirit are reflected in humankind, who bears the image of God, in the context of the spiritual life. For Bulgakov, the spiritual life involves our masculine and feminine spiritual principles, and these principles refer to the two primary activities of discipleship. Bulgakov’s theology of spiritual bisexuality neatly confirms the role of the Holy Spirit in the economy of salvation. Based on the teaching that the Holy Spirit is the primary hypostasis in the world after the Pentecost and his stress on St. Seraphim the Sarov’s teaching that the goal of the spiritual life is the “acquisition of the Holy Spirit,”77 the spiritual life will predominantly involve our feminine principle. Therefore, Bulgakov emphasizes that we are called to be spirit-bearing saints78 and that our acquisition of the Holy Spirit entails an “active passivity”79 or the “passivity of reception, this humility of the self-renouncing man.”80 “Passivity of reception” or “active passivity” are referents to the fundamental feminine experience to which followers of Jesus Christ must commit themselves: to humble themselves so that the Holy Spirit can actualize the work of Christ in their lives. Evident in the term “active passivity,” Bulgakov employs two sets of idealistic descriptions about femininity in his writings. The first set of descriptions

86

Theological anthropology and Mary

expresses femininity in terms of passivity (i.e., to experience an emotion, intuition, or beauty). These are indicative of traditional conceptions of women and their femininity. The second set of descriptions expresses femininity in terms of activity (i.e., to be life-giving, sanctifying, and realizing). Whereas the former set of terms refers to the object of an experience, the latter set of terms refers to initiating an experience, it is empowering. Both are necessary to avoid the spiritual traps of narcissism (overly active) or quietism (overly passive). Bulgakov’s vision of a spirit-bearing saint is one that is not only humble but empowering (e.g., the first martyr, St. Stephen not only humbly accepts God’s will for him but also preaches Gospel to his detriment). Nevertheless, Bulgakov’s stress on the feminine for discipleship as well as interpreting the Holy Spirit within a feminine context unwittingly incorporates a liberating approach to femininity that transcends dualistic and rigid conceptions of gender inherent to the binary conceptions of the sexes from which he theologizes. Thus, the Holy Spirit, as the archetype of femininity, is far from a passive entity: Holy Spirit burns and melts the hardened heart so that it is “illumined with sacred mystery.”81 In the same manner, the spiritual life involves not only passivity on the part of the Christian but also, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, an active realization of the teachings of Jesus Christ. The actualization of this feminine principle entails a creative engagement with the world that is prompted by the Holy Spirit. Creativity, in fact, is an important theme that we find throughout Bulgakov’s sophiological works from The Philosophy of Economy to The Bride of the Lamb.82 According to Bulgakov, creativity refers to humankind’s role in the perfection or fruition of the cosmos.83 Particularly, it refers to a new expression or revelation of divine Sophia’s logoi in creation through the auspices of the human hypostasis. Following from his elucidation of the Son and Holy Spirit, creativity is a function of the masculine and feminine principles in humankind.84 Winston Crum summarizes them as follows: “‘[the] former [masculine principle] involves “creative initiative, discovering new themes, tasks, and opportunities’ . . . whereas the latter [feminine principle] is concerned with ‘the execution of themes, the accomplishment of creative assignments.’”85 The feminine principle is not subordinate even though it is second in order. The feminine principle involves an active appropriation of the masculine principle or discovery. The relationship between the masculine and feminine principles in the human person directly parallels the dyadic relationship of the Son and the Holy Spirit in the economy of salvation. Regarding the spiritual life, the masculine principle is operative in our discovery of Christ and his mission. While professing faith in Jesus Christ is a masculine action, living out this faith commitment is a feminine action. Christian discipleship entails humility on our part, to be moved by the Holy Spirit and realize the Gospel in our contemporary context. How a Christian lives out his/her vocation will be the means by which God the Son will judge that Christian. Bulgakov’s interpretation of gender may be relevant to contemporary discussions about sex and gender. Bulgakov is able to maintain the

Theological anthropology and Mary

87

difference between the sexes that so many Christians today are unwilling to reject given their own experiences and the strong biblical and Patristic support for this teaching, yet he liberates femininity as well as masculinity from rigid preordained functions of passivity and activity respectively. Moreover, anticipating the insights of feminist theologians like Elizabeth Johnson, Bulgakov’s pneumatological interpretation of the spiritual life, pneumatology, and theological anthropology demonstrates a cosmic significance of the Holy Spirit to the community at large86 that involves both men and women and their unique life experiences.87 Ironically, Bulgakov’s gender dualism within his anthropological and pneumatological context breaks down stereotypes about gender that delimit men and women to defined gender roles. He provides a way to speak about gender while retaining two distinct genders, that nevertheless confirms lived experience (e.g., men have feminine qualities and women have masculine qualities).88 Nevertheless, Bulgakov’s insights on the divine Dyad reveal not only in whose image humankind was made (Son and Holy Spirit), the vocation of humankind in light of Christianity (act creativity), but also how to do live out this vocation (actualize what Christ has accomplished through/in the Holy Spirit).

Bulgakov’s doctrine of sin To be made after the image of God is to be fashioned after the divine Dyad. Basing his theological anthropology on the divine Dyad has implications for not only human sexuality and Christian discipleship but also how sin and grace are transmitted from person to person. The upshot of this is that the dogma of the Trinity, particularly the interrelatedness of the persons in the Trinity,89 provide a vocabulary to explain how Mary was sinless without taking recourse in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. With this insight I now turn to Bulgakov’s doctrine of the original sin and human heredity.90 Original sin Bulgakov’s central concern regarding the original sin is to explain our awareness of Adam’s fundamental guilt of our entire being, not sin, but precisely sin, a fundamental anomaly or something that ought not to be: that struggle in our will between good and evil – “the other law” which reigns in our members and draws us not towards that which we wish to do, but to that for which we wish not, of which the apostle Paul speaks (Rom. VII: 10–14). And this obscure immemorial self-definition . . . is a witness of our personal participation in Adam’s original sin . . . every one of us with him and in him, committed his sin and still commits it now.91

88

Theological anthropology and Mary

By phrasing the problem of the original sin in this manner, Bulgakov distances himself from the dominant explanation of the original sin in Orthodoxy today that the original sin resulted in the loss of immortality for the human race.92 His idea that we experience “guilt” for Adam’s sin is closer to a Catholic, Augustinian explanation of the original sin. For most Orthodox Christians today, the human race after the original sin is conceived in a state of mortality, not sin. Mortality has no relationship to guilt for Adam’s sin, but it is simply the state of affairs that humankind now experiences. The upshot of this is that mortality weakens human nature and makes it more susceptible to sin.93 Whereas in the Catholic tradition, sin causes mortality, in Orthodoxy, mortality causes sin. Formally speaking, for an Orthodox Christian, original sin’s originality is relative to the individual human agent, once that agent chooses to sin. The Orthodox understanding of original sin has an affinity with a traditional Catholic understanding of personal sin. In a sense, for eastern Christians all humans are conceived sinless, for sin as a choice against God is not actualized until a personal choice against God is made. Mortality leads to sin, for as Maximus the Confessor argued, the flesh rules the mind.94 However, inherited guilt is impossible. In this way, the original sin is not a disease that results in an existential guilt that is evident in the western Christian tradition but rather the state of mortality. Bulgakov synthesizes the dominant eastern and western approaches in his articulation of the original sin.95 His synthesis consists of the western emphasis on the original sin as an inherited disease that causes mortality and guilt, and the eastern emphasis on the original sin as a condition of mortality that makes future sin more likely. His synthesis rests on what he deems as the unique role of the first human being, Adam, which establishes our personal participation in Adam’s sin.96 Bulgakov contends that Adam was the “all-human,”97 and as such he had a unique ability to define human nature for subsequent generations. For Bulgakov, Adam is the “metaphysical forefather.”98 Chapters one and two of the Book of Genesis provide an account of a true event, the creation of the human spirit that signified the completion of creation, in the form of a “cosmogonic myth.”99 This event had significance for the entire cosmos; however, it was a meta-historical event. The presence of heaven on earth in an incipient form cannot be historically verified. Eden existed, but its existence occurred outside space and time.100 Bulgakov’s conception about Eden dovetails modern Creationist ideas about the Eden epoch before the original sin. Bulgakov insists that empirical human history, which is our experience of history that involves time, did not begin until after the fall, and thus it is impossible to prove or even speak accurately about Adam or Eden before the fall without resorting to mythical language.101 Within this mythical interpretation of Genesis in mind, Bulgakov interprets that biblical account of the original sin symbolically to reflect a unique metaphysical relationship Adam had to humankind and creation. In his earliest sophiological work, The Philosophy of Economy, Bulgakov explains

Theological anthropology and Mary

89

that Adam’s primary task before his original sin was to humanize nature, in other words to submit it “to his consciousness and realizing itself in him.”102 Later in his Hypostasis and Hypostaticity (1925) he provides a hermeneutical key to unlocking what humanization entails within a theological context by employing the terms hypostaticity (self-being) and hypostatize (the process of consciousness).103 Bulgakov writes: This knowledge is not merely a passive reflection of the images of the world in man . . . In knowledge, man not only encompasses within himself that which is known, but also proceeds out of himself into the world and it identified with the latter (which is why the word “knowledge” is also applied to the union of man and woman: “Adam knew Eve his wife” [Gen 4:1]). In this sense, knowledge is the identification of the inner human logos, the eye of the world, with the logos of the world, with both shining in the world from the Divine Logos.104 Adam was called by God to hypostatize his hypostaticity that Adam shared with all creation.105 Before the original sin, this was truly a possibility since Adam had no limits placed on his hypostatization/humanization. All creation was in the purview of his self-knowledge and personal intrigue.106 This for Bulgakov is confirmed by Adam’s naming of the animals in Genesis 2:19. Naming is not an arbitrary act because it expresses the essence of the individual that is contained in Adam as the “psychic pan-organism.” Adam’s action of naming the animals reveals that he is a microcosm of the cosmos, as he completes creation insofar as Adam manifests the ideas contained in his sophianic being (creaturely Sophia). As a cosmic being, his fall into sin will also affect the animal world.107 For these reasons, Adam was a unique human hypostasis. Bulgakov stresses that Adam was an individual hypostasis, without individuality.108 Bulgakov is not merely relying on antinomy or speaking in metaphors, here but rather propounds that Adam’s individuality was quite different from a modern colloquial understanding of individuality.109 Adam lacked any limitation on his personhood. He had the ability to disclose creaturely Sophia to the world, and “was completely accessible to Divine action on him.”110 However, this revelation refers to Adam’s ability to hypostatize nature and in so doing to be present in an immediate, metaphysical way to other hypostases, who share in this nature. Adam had the ability to image the dyadic relationship of the Son to the Holy Spirit in the immanent Trinity with Eve. Just as the Son and Spirit are present to one another in their shared divinity, Adam could be present to other created hypostases in his humanity, or creaturely Sophia.111 Bulgakov’s insists that only after the fall does individuality as we experience it as “separate, uncoordinated, unrepeating and mutually impenetrable centres”112 or a “bad multiplicity” emerge.113 In his 1937 article “Die christliche Anthropologie,” Bulgakov is clear that although humankind is now an aggregate of separate individuals, humankind was meant to

90

Theological anthropology and Mary

constitute a single I, interpenetrating one another.114 This interpenetration was possible before Adam’s original sin. This may seem like fantasy for Bulgakov, but there is undoubtedly a visage of Adam’s personal prerogatives within humankind. C. S. Lewis in his famous The Problem of Pain provides a few examples of what perhaps Bulgakov intended. Lewis noted that the visages of Adam’s unique role in creation before the fall are apparent in a variety of phenomena witnessed today such as a yogi’s control of the “body that is almost part of the external world, such as digestion and circulation,” but also in the ability of human beings to tame wild animals (a phenomena that is not exhibited by any other beast).115 These human capacities are only a glimpse of what prelapsarian Adam was capable of doing. However, once the original sin occurs, Adam’s potential to completely hypostatize creaturely Sophia is no longer possible. Human relationships devolve into an entirely new relationship, whereby Eve became “an autonomous centre of being” to Adam.116 Adam could no longer hypostatize their shared sophianic nature.117 Regarding knowledge, after the original sin, Adam no longer knows Eve as a bi-hypostatic entity but only as a separate individual.118 This is the beginning of human individualism and the experience of aloneness. At the metaphysical level, what causes the disjointedness and impenetrability of Eve to Adam, or inhibition of hypostatization, is “nothing.” Particularly, “the element of liberated nothing surrounded every creature with the icy cold of loneliness; it divided the all-one and turned the centripetal force into a centrifugal one.”119 “Nothing” is simply a new mode of being for humankind. After the original sin, Adam actualizes a new possibility of humankind, not a loving trinitarian-like existence, but rather self-seeking individualism. The “universal body” of humankind and its “connectedness and wholeness” of being at the ontological level remains, which is, of course, evident in the phenomena above.120 However, the relationship of Adam and Eve before the original sin, albeit in an incipient manner, is no longer a possibility for humankind without the direct intervention of God. Thus, our trinitarian-like existence remains an unrealized potential. Although his claim that Adam had a trinitarian-like prerogative will seem odd to many readers, it provides new insight into Christology and ecclesiology. As the New Adam, Jesus Christ had all the avenues open to Him that Adam closed, albeit Christ’s humanity is limited in as much as he exists as Adam or the “all-man” within a fallen world. Bulgakov interprets John 17:21, “That they may all be one; as thou, Father art in me, and I in thee . . . that they may be one as we are one” within the context of his anthropology before the fall, and thus offers an ontological reading of this verse that confirms humankind’s potential to become a multi-hypostatic entity.121 Christ, himself, reveals what a multi-hypostatic existence entails. Bulgakov is consistent in his insistence on employing his doctrine of Godhumanhood. The Incarnation does not violate human nature but rather fulfills it. Otherwise, Bulgakov would fall into the trap of arguing that God is deus

Theological anthropology and Mary

91

ex machina, which he continually rejects. His goal is to demonstrate what exactly it means to say that Christ is fully human without sin. The result is that Christ is first and foremost the New Adam, who lives out the relations of the Old Adam. Therefore, only with Christ does the “inert and dark matter of the world” again become transparent and obedient to the “spirit of man.”122 Christ is truly the New Adam as an all-man; in him “[t]he universal penetrability of bodies” harmonize with his “dynamic individuality.”123 The Church as the body of Christ is important because it provides the means by which the rest of humankind can be penetrated by Christ but also eventually actualize its trinitarian-like potential. The Church is the means in which fallen human beings are able to more fully actualize their humanness in light of the potential prerogatives of prelapsarian Adam. Thus, Bulgakov speaks of the Church primarily in ontological and not sociological terms; he writes that the Church is “not only a society; it is a consubstantiality, a unity and plurality, real and living.”124 “This is the unity in which the active relations between diverse subjects or centres of action constitute the one reality.”125 For Bulgakov, the Church is not a static entity; it is a living “Pan-Christian organism” whereby each person preserves its proper I-ness while uniting with Christ’s I.126 Only as incorporated into the Church will humanity accomplish its soborny of consciousness, yet retain its individual existence as a multi-hypostatic entity.127 Incorporation into Christ is not a supernatural event insofar as it is a non-human event, but rather it is a truly human event that fulfills, without violating humankind’s created status. The Church, therefore, does not provide a new humanity, but rather a renewed or redeemed humanity of Adam, of which Christ, not Adam, is now the active head.128 The Church as Adam’s renewed humanity allows for an existence modeled on the divine Dyad whereby the members exist in a “community of mutual love, mutual sacrifice.”129 Bulgakov’s treatment of Adam’s all-humanhood and his trinitarian treatment of human nature allow him to clearly explain why we are affected by the original sin and experience the guilt associated with Adam’s original sin.130 Adam as the first human being had the ability to hypostatize human nature for better or worse. Either way human nature bears the imprint of Adam’s activity. If Adam had followed God’s decree, we would know Adam in his selfless love. Just as “Christ as the new Adam is all-humanity, that is, the humanity of each of us and all of us together,” Adam was the all-humanity and immanent in creation. In Adam “every human hypostasis lived and acted harmoniously.”131 Just as Christ, the New Adam, abides in our humanity and changed our internal constitution, so that, at the existential level we seek the Kingdom of God,132 Adam changed our internal constitution for the worst. We experience Adam in our innermost being.133 Original sin introduces individuality. Afterward all sins are truly personal insofar as our actions are unable to penetrate other people’s personal beings. Unlike our personal sins, Adam’s personal sin penetrates every human being. In this sense, we all experience not only the consequence of his sin but the

92

Theological anthropology and Mary

sin itself as our own.134 Thus, Adam’s personal sin as an all-human is our original sin. Bulgakov, therefore, writes: “[i]n original sin Adam sinned not as Adam or not only as Adam but as every human. And everyone, all of us, each one of us were co-present in him, co-participated in that metaphysical sin.”135 In this way, we all share in Adam’s responsibility for his sin. We literally experience Adam’s guilt for what he did; this guilt is amplified by our inherent attraction to sin, or concupiscence. Nevertheless, Bulgakov was not contented with this explanation of our guilt and personal responsibility for Adam’s sin. Although the original sin retards humankind’s growth into the fullness of the image of God as a multi-hypostatic entity by engendering our individuality and selfishness,136 the ontological bond between human beings remains. Even before the Incarnation, humankind continued to be a consubstantial community of persons. This ontological bond between each human person is manifested in human heredity.137 Human heredity as a succession of human generations is the residual effect of the original sin, and through heredity, sin is transmitted. Following Augustine, Bulgakov argues that human copulation which results in conception transmits the original sin of the parents to the child.138 This expresses humankind’s shared descent from Adam, as well as the solidarity of the human race. His doctrine of heredity begins with his teachings on the creation of the soul. Bulgakov in The Bride of the Lamb, he writes: The souls of people who have died and the souls of those who have not yet been born . . . all this is present in exhaustive fullness as a single act in God’s eternity, as if participating in God’s repose, in the Sabbath of the absolute being . . . The temporal of the world is eternal for God, and eternal in God exists in temporality in creation.139 According to Bulgakov, the creation of the soul is an eternal-temporal act, or simultaneously a “supratemporal creation” and a “creation in time.”140 The soul proceeds from God into creation at the moment of its conception. At this time, God gives the soul a choice to either accept or reject God’s offer to incarnate in sinful flesh. The soul’s incarnation is premised upon its acceptance of the original sin. Given the fact that each soul is created for the purpose of creation and is thus given a “will for life,” the soul graciously accepts to be incarnate. This choice allows Bulgakov to express our personal culpability in Adam’s sin. Always conscious of human freedom, Bulgakov unnecessarily complicates his doctrine with his speculations about our personal acceptance of Adam’s sin before our conception.141 Rejecting creationism, traducianism, and heretical conceptions of pre-existence of souls such as those promulgated by Origen, Bulgakov argues that all of these traditions appropriate a crude anthropomorphism since they appropriate time to an event proceeding forth from God’s eternal life and power. To the contrary, Bulgakov argues that entrance of the soul into the world occurs outside

Theological anthropology and Mary

93

time in eternity.142 In this way, every human person was not only created but received its choice to enter material existence tainted with sin in God’s eternity. Humankind’s creation outside time speaks to the sophiological foundation of humankind and in particular the eternal aspect of the human hypostasis. As I have alluded to above and will demonstrate below, Bulgakov finds in Sophiology the alternative to Catholic anthropology in as much as eternal life, freedom, and grace are not separated from nature but the very basis of creation. Human life is graced, inherently free, and immortal. Nevertheless, how perfectly the soul accepts its incarnation into the sinful world has a direct bearing on the “appropriate means or body for their own incarnation.”143 Corresponding to this pre-incarnate fiat, the soul has two possible genealogical lines in which to incarnate, the line of Cain and Seth.144 Within these two heredities, there are various families and degrees of holiness or sinfulness. The less perfect the response, the more inclined they are to incarnate into sinful families. This does not entail that the soul will become a degenerate, only that the task toward holiness will be more difficult. The incarnate soul has the prerogative to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation. This acceptance or rejection will, in turn, affect future generations. Following from the trinitarian-like prerogatives of humankind, Bulgakov contends that there is a communism of spirit. Because we share the same human nature, we remain connected, and albeit incipiently, our actions for better or worse have effects on other people. However, the direct beneficiaries of our actions are our descendants. Thus, just as a mother shares an ineffable link with a child as opposed to a stranger, so we too share stronger links with family members amid our connection to humankind as a whole. Bulgakov retains the Old Testament notion that the sins or holiness of parents affect children and generations to come (cf. Ex 20:5–6). Our supratemporal choice for incarnation, the actions of our ancestors, and our experiences and actions constitute the “unrepeatable mixture of colors that corresponds to [our] individual and complex personality.”145 Bulgakov spends very little space on the psychological and environmental factors, as his emphasis is to explain how other persons influence holiness and to an extent sin. For my purpose, his elaborate specifications on heredity, pre-incarnate fiat, and the trinitarian-like image of God exist to express how the human race was capable of producing the Theotokos. If we all share in the responsibility for Adam’s sin, then we all share in the responsibility for our salvation. Mary is the expression of this latter communism of spirit, humankind’s collective desire to be saved. God, given Bulgakov’s synergistic account of Godhumanhood, will only save humankind once humankind is prepared; this means that humanity must be willing to receive God incarnate through the elimination of its selfish individualism. Therefore, the Incarnation is Bulgakov’s pretext for his speculations about human heredity. A positive, collective response to God’s offer of salvation is needed for the Incarnation because God only persuades and never

94

Theological anthropology and Mary

overrules human freedom.146 In the Mother of God, the definitive human response to God’s offer of salvation is given; on her rests the fullness of the graces accumulated by her ancestors.147 Mary is therefore not the product of a divine election, as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception would have her, or merely an instrumental cause of the Incarnation, as many Protestants teach, but rather a product of the holiness of successive generations of prophets and saints.148 In this way, Bulgakov stands firmly within the dominant Orthodox tradition since 1854 that has rejected the Immaculate Conception but maintains that Mary was without sin. Note that as Bishop Kallistos Ware recently wrote, there is no official teaching within Orthodoxy on the how Mary is sinless, and thus Orthodox Christians are permitted to accept the theology of the Immaculate Conception; however, that believer should be aware that he/she is going against “the main body of opinion of his Church at the present time.”149 This point is important to keep in mind as Bulgakov is attempting to develop with detail how exactly the majority of Orthodox Christians maintain Mary’s sinlessness without resorting to the Immaculate Conception. Bulgakov rejects the dogma on the Immaculate Conception on the account that the Pope has no authority to define dogma and the Immaculate Conception introduces exceptionalism into the heart of the Sacred Scripture. Exceptionalism is not consistent with Christian revelation which continually demonstrates that God works within human history, never compelling but rather always respecting free will. In this way, Bulgakov relies on his theological anthropology to explain Mary’s unique state. Mary’s lack of sin is not an exception to humankind but rather the result of human holiness and freedom. Bulgakov articulates how this is possible through his discussion of holiness and grace. Holiness for Bulgakov has a quasi-materialistic connotation. He describes it in terms of spiritual energy. Bulgakov writes, “[s]piritual energies are held back or accumulate” as a result of their ancestors’ actions.150 Sinfulness is not a negative energy per se, but rather a lack of this spiritual energy. In Mary, the spiritual energies of her parents and ancestors reach their culmination to the point where she is rightly considered the Panagia, the All Holy. Regarding grace, the grace that Mary receives is a natural/sophianic grace; it is a result of the “force of love” that each human being experiences in his or her existential longing for God.151 Mary’s state that is graced is a collective human achievement. Mary is therefore truly the New Eve and daughter of Zion.152 In Mary, the prelapsarian state of blessedness returns to humankind. However, in so far as Mary remains faithful to God amid sin in the world and will conceive by the Holy Spirit, the God-Man, she exceeds Eve’s original blessedness.153 For Bulgakov, a robust theology of heredity is necessary to link the Old Testament to the New Testament.154 Otherwise what will result is an arbitrary teaching that stresses a philosophical category (e.g., God’s omnipotence) as opposed to a scriptural presentation of the divine-human synergy:

Theological anthropology and Mary

95

God works with, not against, humankind. The result will be false doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception. For Bulgakov, as Louth observes, The sinlessness of the Mother of God is not then some natural state miraculously created by God (as Bulgakov understood the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to assert), but the result of God’s providence, working through the history of salvation, and culminating in [Mary’s] personal faithfulness.155 The Immaculate Conception is flawed because it downplays God’s providence and violates human freedom. To the contrary, Bulgakov’s theology of heredity stresses providence and human freedom, which is also a further expression of the divine-human synergy. Bulgakov argues Mary’s perfect fiat in history reflected her perfect preincarnate fiat. Yet, her perfect historical fiat was also influenced by the holiness of her ancestors, the Old Testament prophets and saints, including Mary’s parents, Anna and Joachim.156 In other words, Adam’s sin affected Mary, but the holiness of her ancestors and parents, her pre-incarnate fiat helped to nullify the effects of the original sin. The spiritual energy or sophianic grace makes the original sin null and void in terms of sinfulness. Mary does not experience the sin of Adam personally, but rather she is affected by his sin in so far as she experiences the consequence of Adam’s sin, infirmity, and mortality. Mary’s sinless existence is unique in that not only is she sinless amid a sinful world and experiences the consequence of sin, but she is the greatest expression of human holiness, as only she is worthy and capable of receiving the Holy Spirit and giving birth to the Son of God. Interestingly, Mary’s parents have an important role in Mary’s lack of guilt and concupiscence associated with the original sin. Not only were Anna and Joachim righteous, but Church tradition teaches that they conceived Mary in old age.157 The old age of Anna and Joachim is important because with old age is associated impotence and the lack of lust. For Bulgakov, this indicates that Mary’s conception involved passionless coitus or coitus without lust that lessened the effect of the original sin (i.e., concupiscence), which presumably would have been passed on to her by way of the lust of her parents during intercourse.

Bulgakov’s doctrine of grace In Bulgakov’s anthropology humankind was never deprived of grace because humankind cannot exist without God. For this reason, the theological binary of nature and grace that has occupied much attention in Catholic and Protestant theology does not exist in Orthodoxy, for the Orthodox Church has never engaged the dialectic of grace and nature with the same energy and determination as Catholic and Protestant theologians. Bulgakov’s position on grace is reflective of his Orthodox milieu. However, Bulgakov was not

96

Theological anthropology and Mary

aloof to this dialectic. He has been particularly well-versed in Catholic theories of grace; thus, he was familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas’s theory of the five effects of grace158 and contemporaneous neo-scholastic theories of grace. Bulgakov finds the lack of debate on this topic in Orthodoxy to be indicative of Orthodoxy’s different anthropological premise and teaching of the original sin.159 Orthodoxy has an entirely different paradigm for approaching grace, sin, and humankind that does not include a juxtaposition of grace and nature. For Bulgakov, this paradigm is neatly expressed in Sophiology. Within his sophiological context, nature cannot exist without grace. Moreover, the gratuitous aspect of human freedom that is firmly posited itself in the scholastic teaching on grace as superadditum is established for Orthodoxy in creation, particularly, Bulgakov will add, in the fundamental correlation of God and creation. If creation exists in/as God’s energy or wisdom, then it is impossible and unwarranted to abstract pure human nature or God’s grace from creation. Bulgakov, however, does not drop “grace” from his discussion but rather in The Burning Bush offers an alternative expression of grace and nature in contradistinction to neo-scholastic abstractions.160 In his theology, grace refers principally to God’s activity in the world, the divine-human synergy, and creaturely Sophia. More specifically, Bulgakov speaks of two distinct forms of grace: natural/sophianic grace and supernatural grace/grace of deification.161 Whereas sophianic grace is simply nature created by God that is profoundly touched by God,162 supernatural grace is the encounter we have with the Holy Spirit. Bulgakov’s notions of grace echo the sentiments of more recent Catholic theologians like Karl Rahner, Henri de Lubac, and Bernard Lonergan, all of whom describe grace in existentialist terms as a movement of human beings to be open to God’s gift.163 What grace is or how it differs from human nature is unimportant for them. Like them, Bulgakov’s concern is the application of grace and not the essence of grace.164 If pressed to find what exactly Bulgakov means when he says grace, I think sophianic grace is creaturely Sophia. However, this statement needs nuance. Sophianic grace is not an entity but a constitutive part of human nature: it is “creaturely sophianicity, serving as the basis of all being regardless of its form.”165 Sophianic grace is a relational category that expresses the spiritual life as a “divine – humanity in the process of being accomplished.”166 Bulgakov stresses that it is “not a new what but only a kind of how.”167 In other words, as Boris Jakim notes, it is “the divine image and likeness in humanity,”168 or, as Valliere notes, the divine ground in us from which creation springs.169 Thus sophianic grace is not only the image of the image of God in humankind but the ability that God gives to humankind to live out this image. Moreover, in this sense, sophianic grace refers to the spiritual life or the basis and means for our relationship with God. This relationship entails two primary aspects: first, God’s providence, which guides humankind, and second, the existential yearning that every person has for God or “earthly eros.”170 Human beings desire God because they are a Godlike sophianic being made for communion with God.

Theological anthropology and Mary

97

Bulgakov’s doctrine of the image of God and the original sin intimately involve his doctrine of sophianic grace. The original sin weakens sophianic grace insofar as the abilities of Adam as an all-man are no longer possible for postlapsarian humankind. Bulgakov writes: “Having turned away from God, the human lost the power and fountain of life within, weakened, he could no longer contain and bind his body.”171 Thus, we are not stripped of our grace, which given Bulgakov doctrine of Sophia will be a violation of our created being, but we lose the power we once had, and our bodies that worked in harmony with our spirit are now obstacles to the spiritual life. Adam’s sin introduces self-sufficient individuality into humanity.172 Serving ourselves outside of God or in contrast to God’s will is essentially a choice for nothing, or a choice against grace, which is powerless. Thus, the original sin introduced utter powerlessness, to live a life not only in sin but a life where we have intentionally striven to muffle grace in our lives. Ultimately individualism brings only death and further separation from God, which is an unnatural, powerless state of our eternal spirit. Unfortunately, we are predisposed to this powerlessness due to Adam’s sin that is evident in our collective experience of guilt and concupiscence. The original sin makes us incapable of fully receiving and benefiting from our relationship with God and the world as the image of God’s image and likeness. Nevertheless, because our life is graced insofar as it is creaturely Sophia, original sin cannot erase the image of God within us: we have the power to regain the fullness of this relationship to some extent. When we do God’s will, we gain back some of this prelapsarian power, which Bulgakov expresses as spiritual energy. Spiritual energy refers to the increase in our knowledge and personal relationship with God, expressed in holiness and lack of concupiscence. It expresses the reclamation of our original likeness; like Adam and Eve before the original sin, we gain back control of our desires, thoughts, and actions so as to properly order them in relation to God and the world. The life and energy we reclaim is our eternal spiritual life, which is not juxtaposed to bodily living but rather refers to the fullness of bodily existence as transfigured existence.173 Thus, following the Palamite tradition, Bulgakov expresses sophianic grace in terms of energy, specifically as “the energy of sophianicity”174 or a “life-giving force.”175 When Bulgakov speaks about the accumulation of spiritual energy throughout time that is bestowed on the Mother of God, he is speaking of sophianic grace. Spiritual energy predisposes us to work with the will of God, for whom we yearn to be united. Our prayers and charitable deeds can increase the effectiveness of this grace, albeit sophianic grace remains preparatory and preliminary.176 This is the reason Christ not only prayed but stressed that his Apostles and disciples pray before and after His Resurrection. It is precisely through generations of holy and sacrificial living that the grace afforded to Adam is not only restored to Mary in its fullness but extended and increased, since Mary, by living in a fallen world, understands the possibility of disobedience, without being tempted to yield to it like

98

Theological anthropology and Mary

Adam. Here we find the influence of Irenaeus of Lyons on Bulgakov, who argued that Adam and Eve were immature before the original sin, and that their temptation by Satan was in part due to this immaturity. For Mary, this cannot be the case since she sees the effects of sin all around her. In preparation for the Incarnation, Mary is “full of grace.” The concupiscent effect of Adam’s sin is removed from her. This occurs through the direct blessedness of the prophets and Old Testament saints who pass on their holiness to the Mother of God (i.e., Mary’s exceptional heredity), her parents’ righteousness, her miraculous conception, but also through her pre-incarnate fiat.177 This sophianic grace is compounded by Levitic priesthood’s prayers and rituals.178 Bulgakov’s complicated explanation of Mary’s graced state stresses the interconnectedness of the human race, but also how God involved humankind in God’s plan for the Incarnation. God guided the prophets and Old Testament saints, but ultimately, the ability for a daughter of Israel to be worthy of becoming the Mother of God is a result of their free will, their faith in God. This in no way is meant to minimize God’s providence, but rather to highlight the synergy involved in the economy of salvation. Nevertheless, these means of sophianic grace aid in the restoration of humankind’s justitia originalis. In the case of Mary, however, she exceeds even this state; and thus, she perfectly exists as a human being imparted with the fullness of sophianic graces. Gabriel’s acclamation to Mary as “full of grace” confirms this.179 Mary attains a maximal degree of holiness possible for a human person affected by the original sin and living in a fallen world. Only after Mary has reached the fullness of the grace of Sophia can the Holy Spirit descend upon her because only then is she the worthy vessel to be the Birthgiver of God.180 However, although Mary attains the height of human holiness, without supernatural grace she is unable to be Theotokos or “God according to grace.”181 How exactly Mary becomes the Theotokos and what that means regarding her relationship with the Holy Spirit is the context for Bulgakov’s doctrine of the pneumatophoric hypostasis that will be addressed in the next chapter. Nevertheless, regarding the correlation between divine and creaturely Sophia, as naturally graced, humankind can manifest their divine sophianic logos, but this is different from uniting with their logos. An infinite gap remains between God and humankind that humankind is unable to cross. The salvation that we desire, which is deification (i.e., union with our logos, or realization of our divine Image), is not possible without the direct, personal intervention of the grace-giver, the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Bulgakov maintains that even though Mary attains the heights of holiness and is graced to the maximal degree possible for a human being before the Annunciation, she is not yet saved. Only after the descent of the Holy Spirit upon her, especially after her Son accomplished His mission, is salvation possible for her.

Theological anthropology and Mary

99

Supernatural grace, therefore, refers to a new relationship with God brought about by the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit is not involved in sophianic grace. Properly speaking, the Holy Spirit is the efficient and the formal cause of sophianic grace. Albeit not the Holy Spirit itself, sophianic grace is influenced by the action/movement of the Holy Spirit in creation that cooperates with humankind. To use Aquinas’s terms, sophianic grace has operational and cooperative effects. Grace is operational in the sense that it prompts people to respond to God’s offer of salvation and cooperative in the sense that it allows for us to respond to this offer. Yet this grace is only prefatory, and it does not give us salvation. Bulgakov maintains that the Holy Spirit acts impersonally through Sophia, creating these effects.182 Unfortunately, regarding supernatural grace, because we are speaking about God’s personal encounter with humankind and humankind’s encounter with God, theologizing on this point is limited since the relationship of God to the world is guarded by the cosmological and sophiological antinomies. This explains why in comparison to Bulgakov’s reflections on sophianic grace, Bulgakov publishes very little on supernatural grace.183 Nevertheless, he is clear that the relationship with God for which we were made and existentially desire is accomplished with the descent of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Nichols writes “man only truly exists to the degree that he welcomes such participation.”184 With the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit is personally present in our lives. The Holy Spirit penetrates our nature to the degree in which we welcome the Holy Spirit. Bulgakov speaks of this sharing in terms of divine inspiration that means the suppression of personal I, leading to a life lived in accordance with the Holy Spirit,185 which is also a life lived according to our divine logos. Stressing Galatians 2:20 “yet not I, but Christ lives in me,” Bulgakov contends that the presence of the Holy Spirit makes the individual believer transparent to the Holy Spirit, who, in turn, following from its hypostatic function, makes the believer transparent to Christ Jesus and thereby adopted as children of the Father.186 Bulgakov’s concern is the new relationship between the Holy Spirit and humankind, who, after the impasse of sin that has been removed through the Paschal Mystery and the Resurrection of Christ, now enables divine communion for humankind. Therefore, supernatural grace not only directly involves the Holy Spirit but also the divine Son.187 This explains why his thought on supernatural grace is situated within a Christological context. In Christ, humanity and divinity are united.188 Christ’s deified humanity is the means by which union between humankind and God occur. Christ is not merely a human male, but the all-human, and the hypostasis of the Divine Son.189 As the all-human and the Logos, Christ contains within his nature all human hypostases as both a proto-image (divinity) and an image in creation (humanity). His incarnation brings God intimately close to us, and he allows the human race to participate in his divine-human life. He reveals to an extent the path that all Christians must follow toward

100

Theological anthropology and Mary

deification; however, his deification is caused by divine condensation (i.e., God becomes human). Humankind, however, must ascend to God while God in the divine Dyad descends to humankind.190 Following Bulgakov’s theology of the divine Dyad, the Holy Spirit actualizes what Christ has accomplished for humanity. Through the Holy Spirit, supernatural grace is imparted to us, which can also be expressed as being incorporated into the Body of Christ. Our deification, once it is complete, will involve direct communion with both the Son and the Holy Spirit. Supernatural grace is a pure gift, not something we can accomplish by our efforts under God’s providence, albeit God does not impart it until we are prepared. Even once we are prepared, we only receive the realization of this personal relationship with God to the extent that we can do so. This corresponds to our will to be in communion with God. Thus, there are degrees in deification.191 His insistence that the Holy Spirit is present in our lives points to the Holy Spirit’s hypostatization of our nature. Whereas sophianic grace simply refers to our synergistic relationship with God, supernatural grace relates to a new relationship with the God whereby the Holy Spirit is hypostatically present within us and directly affects our relationship with God, in the imputation of the Holy Spirit’s gifts. In some sense, we unite with both the Holy Spirit and the Son naturally, so long as we understand that the relationship is not fully reciprocated. To be God by grace is to encounter God personally within creaturely Sophia. We cannot hypostatize the divine nature, and therefore it is impossible for us to know and experience Godin-Himself, but only God as God-for-us. Thus, supernatural grace involves the adoption of our hypostasis by the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, which is simultaneous to realize our shared Godhumanhood with Christ.

Conclusion As we move to discuss Bulgakov’s doctrine of Mary as the pneumatophoric hypostasis in the next chapter, it is important to understand that this doctrine presupposes his treatment of supernatural grace, the divine Dyad, and the image of God that I have outlined above. Bulgakov emphasizes that the adoption of Mary by the Holy Spirit is none other than the hypostatization of her nature by the Holy Spirit.

Notes 1 This can explain Bulgakov’s treatment of the image of God in humankind that is clearly at odds with the majority of the Church Fathers. The majority of the Church Fathers interpret the image of God in humankind psychologically as the intellect, will, or action. (For a reliable overview of the Church Fathers’ positions on what it means to be made in the image of God see Martien Parmentier, “Greek Patristic Foundations for a Theological Anthropology of Women in Their Distinctiveness as Human Beings,” (Anglican Theological Review 84.3

Theological anthropology and Mary

2 3 4

5

101

(2002): pp. 555–583), p. 577.) Although the Church Fathers expressed gender/sex in a manner similar to Bulgakov, gender/sex was not axiomatic in the Fathers’ thought; sex and gender were superfluous, analogous to nationality. Rosenthal, “Nature and Function of Sophia,” p. 170. Cf. Bulgakov, BB, p. 86; Bulgakov, BL, p. 265. Bulgakov, “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe,” p. 369. This does not mean that Bulagakov dropped erotic language completely from his thought. In The Comforter, for instance, Bulgakov places erotic love or eros within an antinomic context. Eros is passionate creativity and inspiration. For Bulgakov “spiritual eros” is the “quality of man by which he hopes to become united with his creator.” (Graves, p. 79.) However, after the fall, eros is complicated with the introduction of lust. It now exists in constant tension with sex. (Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 5, Location 4879 of 6301.) As a result of the fall “spiritual eros became chained to the flesh.” (Graves, p. 81.) In other words, the spiritual communion that was possible before the fall is no longer a reality, for this erotic love is enslaved to the “psychological-physical union of the flesh, in which not love but desires is dominant.” (Ibid., p. 80.) What results is the coating of humankind in the “coats of skin” that Bulgakov interprets as sensual flesh. (Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 5, Location 4992 0f 6301.) Sensuality is a euphemism for inordinate passion or lust. The “coats of skin” therefore reflect the new reality where the flesh is no longer transparent to the spirit. We do what we do not want to do (Romans 7:15–16). Bulgakov does not mean that the goal of the spiritual life is to liberate ourselves from the organ of skin but rather from lust. Marriage and asceticism are two ways accomplish this liberation. Marriage, however, achieves this liberation in an indirect manner. By this Bulgakov means marriage does not directly battle against sensual desire, but rather provides an outlet for that desire to be redeemed. (Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 5, Location 4985 of 6301.) Regula M. Zwahlen, Das Revolutionäre Ebenbild Gottes: Anthropologien der Menschenwürde bei Nikolaj A. Berdjaev und Sergej N. Bulgakov, (Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2010), p. 309. The similarity between Bulgakov’s and Jung’s ideas on sexuality is striking. Jung in his Marriage as a Psychological Relationship (1925) writes: “[e]very man carries within him the eternal image of woman, not the image of this or that particular woman, but a definite feminine image. This image is fundamentally unconscious, an hereditary factor of primordial origin engraved in the living organic system of the man, an imprint or ‘archetype” of all the ancestral experiences of the female, a deposit, as it were, of all the impressions ever made by woman-in short, an inherited system of psychic adaptation. Even if no women existed, it would still be possible, at any given time, to deduce from this unconscious image exactly how a woman would have to be constituted psychically. The same is true of the woman: she too has her inborn image of man. Actually, we know from experience that it would be more accurate to describe it as an image of men, whereas in the case of the man it is rather the image of woman. Since this image is unconscious, it is always unconsciously projected upon the person of the beloved, and is one of the chief reasons for passionate attraction or aversion. I have called this image the “anima,” and I find the scholastic question Habet mulier animam? especially interesting, since in my view it is an intelligent one inasmuch as the doubt seems justified. Woman has no anima, no soul, but she has an animus. The anima has an erotic, emotional character, the animus a rationalizing one. Hence most of what men say about feminine eroticism, and particularly about the emotional life of women, is derived from their own anima projections and distorted accordingly. On the other hand, the astonishing assumptions and fantasies that

102

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14

15 16 17 18

19

Theological anthropology and Mary women make about men come from the activity of the animus, who produces an inexhaustible supply of illogical arguments and false explanations.” (Karl Jung, “Marriage as a Psychological Relationship: Anima and Animus,” Haverford University: Psychology Department, www.haverford.edu/psych/ddavis/p109g/ internal/j_anima.html#anima, June 5, 2012.) Note that Jung’s definition of the animus and anima share remarkable affinity with Bulgakov’s conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Moreover, whereas Jung presents a psychological theory of bisexuality, Bulgakov presents a spiritual theory of bisexuality. Bershtein, p. 211. Zwahlen, Das Revolutionäre Ebenbild Gottes, p. 309. Brenda Meehan, “Wisdom/Sophia, Russian Identity, and Western Feminist Theology,” (Cross Currents 46 (1996): pp. 149–168), p. 158. Milbank, p. 59. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 45. Rosenthal, “Nature and Function of Sophia,” p. 167. She does not take a clear stance on this; however, she suggests an essentialist reading of Bulgakov. (Celia Deane-Drummond, “Sophia, Mary and the Eternal Feminine in Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Sergei Bulgakov,” (Ecotheology 10.2 (2005): pp. 215–231), p. 229.) Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 2, Sec. 4, Location 1664 of 7314; Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 4, Sec. 1, Location 2759 of 6301. Even in Bulgakov’s response to Metropolitan Sergius’s condemnation of his teachings on sexuality and the image of God, Bulgakov is not entirely clear whether or not he intends a bisexual or binary interpretation of the sexes. He suggests the latter interpretation; he writes: “Of course, it [my teaching] is absolutely not exhausted and even is not constituted by the division of male and female sex in the spirit. However even this division is absolutely not invented by me or ‘taken from nobody knows where.’ It is not unknown for ‘Orthodox consciousness.’ It is enough to point at some fundamental facts. Firstly, that, what is said in God’s Word on the creation of man: ‘and God created man on His image, on God’s image he created him, a man and a female’ (Gen 1.27). Does this text not face us with some kind of spiritual analogy? Moreover, even in the quotation provided by Metropolitan Sergius, left however without any comment, it is pointed at the fact that Logos incarnated in male sex and Holy Spirit descended and inculcated in Mother of God, Virgin-Pneumatophoros, and this exposes the analogy from the other side.” (Sergius N. Bulgakov, O Sofii Premudrosti Bozhiei: Ukaz Moskovskoi Patriarkhii i dokladnye zapiski prot. Sergiia Bulgakova Mitropolitu Evlogiiu, (Paris: YMCA Press, 1935), p. 37.) In Bulgakov’s response, which is polemical and defensive in tone, he does not explain his thought thoroughly, but rather demonstrates that it has patristic precedents, it is based on Gen 1:27, and that it is different from Rozanov. (He calls Rozanov his opponent; however, there is no indication that he rejected Rozanov’s bisexual account of humanity.) (Cf. Ibid., p. 28.) Bulgakov, BB, p. 86. Ibid. Bulgakov, BL, p. 100. Ibid. Compare this statement with a similar statement Bulgakov made in The Comforter: “[i]nwardly, in the spirit, man is defined by the polarity of the male and female principles; and even in his external being, man is not only male or female, but precisely male and female.” (Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 5, Location 4837–4838 of 6301.) Interestingly, five pages before making this statement that is reminiscent of spiritual bisexuality, he argues: “Although the male and female principles are

Theological anthropology and Mary

20 21

22

23

24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31 32

33

103

equally personal and, in this sense, both equally form an I, the timbre of the male I is different from that of the female I. This is a self-evident fact. Neither the male nor female I comprises any composition of the two elements. Male and female I’s are equally immediate and simple; they are not a composition, mixture, or addition.” [Emphasis added] (Bulgakov, BL, p. 95.) This is not necessarily a contradiction of my theory, as Bulgakov maintains that the sexes are different. However, the difference consists in their hypostasis. I-ness is a referent to the hypostasis: there is only a “male I” or “female I,” not a “male-female I.” Cf. Bulgakov, “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe v Bozhestve,” p. 359. Here is the entire passage: “The Holy Spirit is life, and love, and the reality of the Word, even as the Logos is, for Him, the determining content, word-thought and feeling, Truth and being in Truth – as the Beauty of self-revealed Truth. All these interrelations have a parallel (not more and not less than a parallel) in that bi-unity of the human spirit in which the male, solar principle of thought, logos, is united with the female principle of reception, creative accomplishment, beauty. The human sophianic spirit is a male-female androgyne, although, in fact, every individual human being is only either male or female; that is, despite this androgynism of the spirit, every individual human being experiences being according to only one of these principles, in relation to which the other principle is only complementary” (emphasis added). (Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 4, Sec. 1, Location 2754–2758 of 6301.) Note that Bulgakov expresses the human spirit as a “male-female androgyne,” albeit it experiences its nature according to its dominant principle. Although Bulgakov lacks an adequate doctrine of analogy, in “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe v Bozhestve” he rejects any attempt to speak of God in terms of human sexuality (i.e., to speak univocally about sexuality). He advocates for a spiritual interpretation of sexuality that equates sex with hypostatic function/mission. Note that Boris Jakim and Allan Smith in their English translations of Bulgakov’s major and minor trilogies opt for the translation of “androgyny” as opposed to “bisexuality.” Although this is a valid translation, I do not think it is the best translation because in a contemporary context androgyny may mean genderlessness, which is not at all consistent with Bulgakov’s thought. Bulgakov, JL, p. 90. Bulgakov, “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe,” pp. 369, 376. Bulgakov writes: “Дух человека имеет в своей ипостасной природе единосущное и нераздельное единство Мужского и Женского, Слова и Чувства, Ума и Воли, Добра, Истины и Красоты.” (Bulgakov, “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe v Bozhestve,” p. 351.) Bulgakov, UF, p. 310. Bulgakov, JL, p. 87; Cf. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 5, Location 4835 of 6301. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 99. Bulgakov, UF, p. 301. Ibid., p. 300. Bulgakov’s account of the sexes undoubtedly draws inspiration from Gregory of Nyssa’s doctrine of the double creation of humankind. (Cf. Bulgakov, UF, p. 314.) According to Nyssa, God first created humankind and then differentiated humankind as male and female in purview of the original sin. However, Bulgakov rejects the notion that God created biological sex in the purview of the original sin. Because gender is axiomatic in Bulgakov’s anthropology, the original sin has no bearing on God’s creation of sex. In the Orthodox tradition there is no single, authoritative teaching on gender. There is, however, a strong emphasis on the “notion of male and female

104

34 35 36 37 38

39

40 41 42 43 44 45 46

47 48

Theological anthropology and Mary complementary, where females are usually seen as needing to be completed by males.” (Pamela Dickey Young, “Women in Christianity” in Women and Religious Traditions, Second Edition, Edited by Pamela Dickey Young, pp. 163–192, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 166.) Young argues that Marian piety has reinforced gender stereotypes such as women are passive. (Ibid., p. 182.) Rosenthal, “Nature and Function of Sophia,” p. 171. Cf. Melvin Konner, Women Afterall: Sex, Evolution, and the End of Male Supremacy, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2015). Bulgakov, BB, p. 82. Cf. Bershtein, p. 29. Bulgakov, JL, p. 88. On humankind’s imaging of the Trinity, Bulgakov also wrote: “The image of God is realized in humankind not only by the transcendence of its spirit, by negative absoluteness, but also by positive co-participation in the mystery of Divinity, Its trihypostaseity.” (Bulgakov, UF, p. 5.) In other works such as The Friend of the Bridegroom [1927] and The Orthodox Church [1935] he states explicitly that we are created in the image of the Holy Trinity. (Bulgakov, FB, pp. 144, 15; Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, p. 105.) Properly speaking, to be made in the image of God is “Divine-Humanity as the image of the Father. The image of the Father is the Son, Who manifested Himself in the God-Man and the Holy Spirit, Who manifest Himself in the Mother of God. Man is created in the image of God, as male and female, according to the revelation of fatherhood, as sonhood and as mother-daughterhood . . . Man is created for Godsonhood and Goddaughterhood.” (Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 5, Location 5510 of 6301.) “Man is created in the image of God, but this means that he is created in the image of Christ; for man, Christ is the revelation and accomplishment of this image. The image of the coming Christ is imprinted in the first man not only in his body, which is an image of the sophianic world, and not only in his spirit, which in a certain sense is sent from heaven.” (Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 2, Sec. 3, Location 2005–2008 of 7314.) Ibid., Ch. 2, Sec. 3, Location 2005 of 7314. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 42. Cf. Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 3, Sec. 2, Location 2581–2586 of 7314. Cf. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 45. Vladimir Lossky was aware of this ambiguity and criticizes Bulgakov because of Bulgakov’s essentialist treatment of sex. I will discuss Lossky’s critique in Chapter 6. Bulgakov considers neither hermaphrodites nor queer men and women that would have complicated his treatment of the sexes. He assumes biology reflects sexual predisposition. Bulgakov’s emphasis on the personality of the Trinity marks his unique contribution to trinitarian theology. Though he is respectful of the Church Fathers, he recognizes their theological insufficiency due to their inability to explain why the divine life is trihypostatic and their appropriation of causality to the inner life of the Trinity. He sees his task as to provide a sufficient account of the trinitarian personality, keeping trinitarian discussion from abstraction and unwarranted anthropomorphization. (Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 156.) Andrew Louth notes that the anaphora of the Eucharistic prayer in the divine liturgy, which is addressed to God the Father but takes place through the Son and the Holy Spirit influences Bulgakov’s thought on the divine Dyad. (Louth, “Task of Theology,” p. 253.) Graves, p. 1. Ibid., p. 2.

Theological anthropology and Mary

105

49 Cf. Bulgakov, BL, p. 127. This is an important point for Bulgakov because he disavows processions of originations as unwarranted anthropomorphizations. (Cf. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Epilogue, Location 5662 of 6301.) 50 Graves, p. 4. 51 Bulgakov is employing his theology of kenosis. 52 Graves, p. 5. 53 This is Nichols’ translation of Uteshitel [The Comforter], p. 77 in his book Wisdom from Above, p. 162. 54 Although all the hypostases are interrelated and penetrate one another, ontologically, not chronologically, there is a taxis in the Trinity. The Holy Spirit cannot repose upon the hypostasis of the Son, giving the Son life, until the Son is begotten by the Father. 55 Employing an analogy of communication to further express the hypostatic function of the Three persons, Bulgakov argues that the Father and Son only communicate to one another through the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit “the Father and Son have nothing to say to each other, because their life is wholly in each other.” (Rowan Williams, A Margin of Silence: The Holy Spirit in Russian Orthodox Theology, (Québec: Lys Vert, 2008), p. 23.) The Spirit in this sense makes it possible for a communication to exist between both persons because the Spirit makes this relationship concrete. The implication of this is that in allowing for the Father and Son to speak, the Holy Spirit remains silent. 56 Williams, A Margin of Silence, p. 23. 57 Ibid. 58 Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 2, Sec. 1, Location 2134–2140 of 6301. On the interrelatedness of the Son and the Holy Spirit in the inner life of God, Bulgakov states: “one can say that, in the Holy Trinity, the Son is the condition of the Holy Spirit, even as the Holy Spirit is the condition of the Son.” (Ibid., Ch. 2, Sec. 1, Location 2140 of 6301.) 59 Ibid., Ch. 4, Sec. 1, Location 2432–2435 of 6301. 60 Ibid., Ch. 4, Sec. 1, Location 2426-2433 of 6301. 61 Ibid., Ch. 4, Sec. 1, Location 2695–2696 of 6301. 62 Ibid., Ch. 4, Sec. 1, Location 2680–2685of 6301. 63 Bulgakov bases his teaching on the Holy Spirit as Mother on an obscure Syrian bishop, Aphraates “the Persian Sage.” (Cf. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Endnotes, Location 6126 of 6301, n. 7.) Recent scholarship has demonstrated that Aphraates appropriation of femininity to the Holy Spirit was not an anomaly but widespread in Syria until the fourth century. Stanley Burgess points to the rise of the cult of Mary as a reason for the decline in attributing maternity to the Holy Spirit. (Cf. Stanley Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Eastern Christian Traditions, Third Edition, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Press, 2000).) Therefore Legisa is incorrect in his assessment that Bulgakov’s position on the maternity of the Holy Spirit has no support among the Church Fathers. (Legisa, p. 14.) 64 “The Holy Spirit Reposes upon the Logos, and the Logos Abides in His Bosom.” (Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 4, Sec. 1, Location 2754 of 6301.) 65 Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 4. Sec. 2, Location 2871–2872 of 6301. Bulgakov summarizes this relationship as follows: “Here we already have that mysterious cryptogram of the Divine-Maternity in which is born the God-Man, the supreme purpose and goal of the entire creaturely world.” (Ibid., Ch. 4. Sec. 2, Location 2871–2872 of 6301.) 66 Bulgakov is careful to stress that what can be said about the immanent Trinity became accessible only in the economic Trinity. He writes, “This supra-eternal interrelation in the immanent Trinity becomes accessible for us in the economic

106

67

68

69

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

81 82 83 84 85 86

87

Theological anthropology and Mary Trinity, that is, it becomes accessible christologically.” (Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch.4, Sec. 1, Location 2718 of 6301.) During the Annunciation, the Holy Spirit overshadows the Mother of God, who in turn conceives/begets the Son. This is a complete reversal of the Holy Spirit’s relationship to the Son in the immanent Trinity. In the immanent Trinity, the Holy Spirit reposed upon the already begotten Son. The Holy Spirit accomplishes this first through the Spirit’s life-bestowing function at the Incarnation. The Incarnation was the first descent of the Holy Spirit; however, the Holy Spirit only descended upon Mary. At the Pentecost, the Spirit is sent by the Son and descends upon the Church. In other words, the kenosis of the divine Son, the Son’s stripping of His glory and power in order to unite with creaturely nature, ended with His Ascension into heaven (Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 4, Sec. 1, Location 3304–3309 of 7314). The divine nature in a sense was in a stasis that allowed Christ to unite without confusion the divine and human natures. Without this kenosis, the human nature would have been overwhelmed. God would have either dissolved creaturely nature into Godself or undermined creaturely freedom by forcing the divine will upon creation. The kenosis allows Christ to be fully human, living out his humanity as a human being. In this way Christ affects the human condition from the inside, as one of us, accomplishing God’s will without overcoming human freedom. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 3, Location 3932 of 6301. Ibid., Ch. 4, Sec. 3, Location 4031 out of 6301. Williams, A Margin of Silence, p. 19; See also Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 24. Ibid., p. 184. Williams, A Margin of Silence, p. 26. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 4, Location 4147 of 6301. Bulgakov writes: “every human countenance that is made radiant by the grace of the Spirit . . . manifests Him.” (Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 4, Location 4147 of 6301.) Cf. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 5, Location 4528 of 6301. Ibid., Ch. 5, Sec. 3, Location 3797 of 6301. Ibid., Ch. 5, Sec. 5, Location 4540 of 6301. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 5, Location 4543 of 6301. Bulgakov, moreover, rejects wholeheartedly the distinction between monasticism and the laity. Asceticism is a necessary practice for all Christians, not just monks and nuns. Ibid., Ch. 5, Sec. 4, Location 4147 of 6301. Cf. Bulgakov, PE, p. 145; Bulgakov, BL, p. 323. Crum, “The Doctrine of Sophia,” pp. 40–41. Bulgakov, UF, pp. 309–310. Crum, “The Doctrine of Sophia,” pp. 39–40. Bulgakov spends at great length demonstrating the biblical warrant for his insistence that the life of the Church is life in the Spirit. His defense includes these verses: John 3:8, John 3:34, John 15:26, Romans 8:9, Acts 2:33, 1 Peter 1:10–12, Ephesians 1:17, Philippians 1:19, Galatians 4:6. Cf. Elizabeth A. Johnson, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse, (New York: Crossroad, 1992), p. 132. Nevertheless, Johnson rejects any attempt to appropriate femininity to the Holy Spirit because it supports the well-being of men. (Ibid., p. 53.) Note, however, Johnson does not consider the nuanced form of spiritual bisexuality that Bulgakov presents. The closest she comes to an evaluation of spiritual bisexuality is her evaluation of

Theological anthropology and Mary

88 89

90

91 92

93

107

Leonardo Boff’s thought in Truly Our Sister: A Theology of Mary and the communion of Saints. Unfortunately, she brushes Boff off as illogical. (Elizabeth A. Johnson, Truly Our Sister: A Theology of Mary in the Communion of Saints, (New York: Continuum, 2006), p. 57.) As Johnson contends, if we examine our lived experience, we will find that gender stereotypes are false since traditional feminine qualities such as nurturing and compassion are not just qualities of women. (Cf. Johnson, She Who Is, pp. 53–54.) His trinitarian image of humankind was undoubtedly influenced by Solov’ev and Florensky. (Michael Meerson, “Sergei Bulgakov’s Philosophy of Personality” in Russian Religious Thought, Edited by Judith Deutsch Kornblatt and Richard F. Gustafson, pp. 135–153, (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996.), p. 149) Like Bulgakov, Solov’ev, for instance, stated, “the interpenetration (perichoresis) of the divine and human natures in Christ to be a ‘model for the mutual interaction and mutual penetration of all entities in Christ.’” (Gustafson, p. 45; Cf. Marilyn Louise Gray, “Russian Theological Anthropology and Bakhtin: The Aesthetics of the Divine Image,” (Ph.D. diss., Berkeley: University of California, 2011), p. 54) Florensky similarly wrote: “Love of one’s brother is a revelation to another, a passage to another, the inflow into another of that entering into Divine life which in the God communing subject is perceived by this subject as knowledge of Truth. The metaphysical nature of love lies in the supralogical overcoming of the naked self-identify ‘I = I’ and in the going out of oneself. And this happens when the power of God’s love flows out into another person and tears apart in him the bonds of finite human selfhood. Owing to this going out of itself, I becomes in another, in not-I, this not-I. I becomes consubstantial with the brother, consubstantial (homoousios) and not only like-substantial (homoiousios).” (Florensky, PGT, p. 67 in Gray, p. 87.) Bulgakov’s trinitarian interpretation is his answer to a difficulty that we find in the Fathers regarding humankind: to harmonize “the great affirmation of the unity of humanity with the concrete diversity of human beings and especially with the otherness of men and women.” (Cf. Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, Ministry of Women in the Church, Translated by Steven Bigham, (Redondo Beach, CA: Oakwood Publications, 1991, Kindle Digital File), Ch. 1, Locations 915–916 of 5417.) Note that although it is not a dominant theme in Fathers, the Fathers consider the “human vocation as a trinitarian life.” (Ibid., Ch. 1, Locations 974–975 of 5417.) Interestingly, within modern Orthodoxy, BehrSigel traces the development of this idea from Solov’ev to Bulgakov, and from Bulgakov to Paul Evdokimov and Olivier Clement. She notes that Thomas Hopko systemizes these ideas in his defense of the exclusion of women from priestly ordination. (Ibid., Ch. 1, Locations 986 of 5417.) Hopko and Bulgakov share three essential characteristics: 1) they use feminine symbolism to analyze God, 2) they base the otherness of men and women in God, and 3) they provide a generous interpretation of femininity. (Ibid., Ch. 1, Locations 995 of 5417.) Serguis N. Bulgakov, “On Original Sin,” (Journal of St. Alban and St. Sergius 7 (December 1929): p. 21). See John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), pp. 146–148. See also Walter N. Sisto, “Marian Dogmas and Reunion: What Can Eastern Catholics Teach Us about Catholic Ecumenism?” (Journal of Ecumenical Studies 46.2 (2011): pp. 150–162), p. 156.) Bulgakov, FB, p. 20. Only in this sense is Bulgakov’s explanation of the original sin as a universal sickness faithful to the dominant eastern tradition.

108

Theological anthropology and Mary

94 For Maximus the spiritual life involves redirecting the mind from the flesh and carnal desire which make the mind “cowardly and unmanly” to God. Thus a sinful man or woman is consumed with material things (i.e., the flesh rules the mind). (Cf. Maximus the Confessor, St. Maximus the Confessor: The Ascetic Life; The Four Centureis on Christian Charity (Ancient Christian Writers), Translated by Polycarp Sherwood, (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1955), pp. 167, 186.) 95 Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 85. The influence of St. Augustine’s anthropology on Bulgakov is well known. (Cf. Tataryn, Augustine and Russian Orthodoxy, p. 77.) 96 Humanity and its first representative have an esteemed role in his account because humankind is not only the greatest creation of God and “the head of the whole world” but also the “microcosm, the world conceived as a unity, and he thus embraces the life of the world in himself.” (Bulgakov, Social Teaching in Modern Russian Orthodox Theology, p. 13.) See also Bulgakov, BB, p. 21. 97 Bulgakov accepts evolution. It confirms humankind’s comic role in creation since it comes forth from creation, yet humankind is the greatest and unique creation. Somewhere in the process of the evolution of humankind, heaven in the form of Eden descended upon the world, and thus there was harmony in the world. Bulgakov insists evolution can only engender humankind’s body but not the eternal, hypostatic spirit. Eden is a meta-historical state in which God planted God’s divine spark, (e.g., the hypostatic spirit, or the image of the divine image) in a humanoid animal, transforming that animal into a person. Eden is a myth for Bulgakov that expresses a true historical event. In Adam, animal nature becomes hypostatic nature. (Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 60.) Evolution provided the means for him to describe how humankind was created. Yet he adds that few evolutionists, blinded by their “bad dogmatism,” fail to address the motivating force of evolution. (Bulgakov, BL, p. 172.) God is this force. For Bulgakov, the myths of the golden age of human civilization in various cultures confirm the existence of this Edenic state. Eden is etched into the human psyche. (Ibid., p. 60.) 98 Bulgakov, PE, p. 139. 99 Bulgakov, BL, p. 177. 100 For a cogent explanation for the role of myth in the Genesis account of creation that is consistent with Bulgakov’s ideas see Clive Staples Lewis, The Problem of Pain, (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996), pp. 63–73. 101 Bulgakov, BL, pp. 170–171. 102 Ibid., p. 121. Moreover, the human person “potentially contains the entire universe within himself.” (Ibid., p. 135.) Our goal is to overcome division and live out the potential cosmic unity within us. 103 Bulgakov, “Hypostasis and Hypostaticity,” p. 18. “Hypostaticity” and “[h]ypostatize” are diminutives of the Greek “hypostasis” (personal self-consciousness). 104 Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 4, Sec. 2, Location 3159–3165 of 6301. 105 Bulgakov’s unique expression of Adam’s hypostatization of his human nature and other hypostases is influenced by Bulgakov’s personal idealism. Adam’s knowledge of Eve is mirrored after the Father’s knowledge of the Son. Note, however, that Eve herself proceeds out from the side of Adam. Nevertheless this analogy is limited since Adam is a creature whereas God the Father is an eternal being. 106 Cf., Bulgakov, PE, p. 154. 107 On the cosmic effects of the fall see Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Heaven: A Cave,” (Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius 3 (1928): pp. 14–18), p. 14. Moreover, the original sin results in the loss of Adam’s potential hypostatization of creation. Ensnared by his own self-positing, humankind became incapable of hypostatizing its creaturely Sophia, changing the sinful course of the world. Even

Theological anthropology and Mary

108 109 110 111 112 113 114

115 116 117

118

119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133

109

the ordering of the human body was lost; the body is no longer subject to the spirit, but rather the spirit is subject to the body, his “consciousness of his spirituality has grown dim.” (Bulgakov, BL, p. 162.) Flesh is no longer seen as a means to divine union, but an end in itself resulting in mortality. In effect, this clouding of the human consciousness resulted in the loss of the ability of creaturely Sophia’s hypostases to hypostatize them. (Cf. Bulgakov, PE, p. 140.) Bulgakov, BB, p. 23. Bulgakov’s thought on Adam as an all-man, was common place among the Slavophiles. (Louth, “Task of Theology,” p. 252, n. 18.) See also Meerson, pp. xv–xvi; Valliere, MRT, p. 3. Bulgakov, “On the Original Sin,” p. 15. Cf. Crum, “The Doctrine of Sophia,” p. 56. Bulgakov, BB, p. 23. Crum, “The Doctrine of Sophia,” p. 36. Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Die christliche Anthropologie” in Kirche, Staat und Mensch: Russisch-Orthodoxe Studien, Edited by Nikolaj Nikolaevič Alekseev, pp. 209–255, (Genf: Russisch-Orthodoxe Studien und Forschungen des Oekumenischen Rates für praktisches Christentum, 1937), p. 227. Lewis, p. 74. Bulgakov, UF, p. 321. Cf. A. Joos, “L’Homme et son Mystère: Élèments d’Anthropologie dans l’œuvre du P. Serge Boulgakov,” (Irékon 45 (1972): pp. 332–351), p. 359. A possible analogy for Adam’s hypostatization or presence in others is our experience of empathy. In empathy we unite our spirit in some sense with another human person who is suffering. (Cf. Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 4, Sec. 3, Location 4289 of 7314.) We are co-crucified with them. With individuality comes the introduction of evil in the world that in some way deforms humankind. (Joos, p. 359.) Adam is a microcosm that reflects and determines the macrocosm of the world. Thus “to his spiritual fullness must correspond the fullness of life in the world, power over the world, the spiritualization of the world.” And again, “Man is a “concentrated” world, a “microcosmos”; the world is an “anthropocosmos.”” (Bulgakov, BL, p. 177.) Therefore the ability or lack thereof for “man” to subdue his own passions and thoughts is reflected in creation. Bulgakov, UF, p. 269. Crum, “The Doctrine of Sophia,” p. 38. Bulgakov, BL, p. 186. Bulgakov writes, “The destiny of humankind is multiunity.” (Ibid., p. 188.) Bulgakov, Social Teaching in Modern Russian Orthodox Theology, p. 18. Bulgakov, UF, p. 226. Bulgakov, Le Paraclet (Paris: Aubier, 1946), pp. 305–306 referenced in Williams, A Margin of Silence, p. 31. Williams, A Margin of Silence, pp. 31–32. Bulgakov, BL, pp. 260–262. Meerson, p. 147. This is the mission of the Holy Spirit. (Williams, A Margin of Silence, p. 28.) Ibid., p. 31. Like Solov’ev, Bulgakov says little about Eve in his consideration of Adam as the all-human. Bulgakov, BB, p. 26. Sergius N. Bulgakov, The Holy Grail & the Eucharist, Translated by Boris Jakim, (Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Books, 1997), p. 57. Bulgakov’s term “hypostatization” refers to the dynamic relationship between the divine nature and the divine hypostasis. With regard to humankind, it refers

110

134 135 136

137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156

Theological anthropology and Mary to self-knowledge, a self-actualization of its content. The human hypostasis as the image of the image of God has the potential to gain consciousness of all created reality; in so doing it can literally command and subdue creation. This consciousness of nature becomes actualized in the actions of the human hypostasis. “Therefore “[t]here is nothing in the universe that is out of reach to our understanding, feeling or will.” (Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 42.) Thus, as Adam grew in his hypostatization, before the fall, he was able to “dress” and “keep” creation (Gen 2:15). Creation itself does not bear any fruit, or flourish until Adam tills the soil. This biblical verse is an allusion to the practical effect of human hypostatization. Hypostatization is the process by which humankind becomes conscious of the presence of God and its own vocation through nurturing its relationship with God. In other words, hypostatization actualizes the sophianic potential of a human hypostasis. Nonetheless, the work of hypostatizing creation is synergistic, always involving God. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 13. Bulgakov, BB, p. 29. The term multi-hypostatic entity requires elucidation. As discussed above, humankind is created in the image of the Trinity. Here Bulgakov speaks analogically and in no way intends a univocal interpretation. The difference between God who is a divine self-enclosed trihypostatic essence and humanity is captured by this notion. Unlike God, humankind was created as natura naturans, not with fullness. Humankind was created to be open not only to God but to the different members of the human race as well as the world at large, including animal and angelic/demonic life. Bulgakov, BB, p. 32 Cf. Young, p. 166. Bulgakov, BL, pp. 59–60. Ibid., pp. 61, 112, 118. Cf. Bulgakov, “On the Original Sin,” pp. 22–23. Ibid., p. 22. Bulgakov, BB, p. 33. Bulgakov writes: “this special heredity has its basis in the freedom of the preworldly self-determination of the soul.” (Bulgakov, BB, p. 33.) Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 1, Location 3338 of 6301. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 68. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 2, Location 3418 of 6301. This does not deny the role of divine providence. Godhumanhood is a thoroughgoing theme in his theological works that is evident in his stress on the divine-human interplay in salvation history. Kallistos of Diokleia, “The Sanctity and Glory of the Mother of God: Orthodox Approaches,” The Way, (Papers of the 1984 International Congress of the Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary (1984): pp. 79–96), p. 88. Bulgakov, BB, p. 33. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, pp. 67–68. See also Bulgakov, BL, p. 225. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 5, Location 5503 of 6301. Here we find a clear development of Florensky’s thought on human heredity. The importance of heredity, for Bulgakov, is confirmed by the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, which both present Christ’s genealogy before explaining their narrative of the Incarnation. Andrew Louth, “Father Sergii Bulgakov on the Mother of God,” (St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49 (2005): pp. 45–64), p. 157. Given the account above about the hypostatic functions of the Holy Spirit and the Son, in order to incarnate, to be fully human, and at the same time

Theological anthropology and Mary

157

158

159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168

169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179

111

vouchsafe the hypostatic functions of the dyad, the Son must incarnate by a woman, a predominantly feminine person. Bulgakov, FB, p. 28. Interestingly, in The Friend of the Bridegroom Bulgakov argues that it is correct to call Mary and John the Baptist the Immaculate Conception. The latter point has some precedent since Palamas argues that John the Baptist was sinless as he was sanctified in the womb of Elizabeth upon Mary’s greeting. Thomas Aquinas, ST, I-II, Q. 111, Art. 3, answer. Bulgakov consistently engages Aquinas in polemics. Ultimately, he argues Aquinas’s theology reflects the God of the philosophers, not the living God whom we encounter. (Bulgakov, BL, p. 228.) Marshall correctly argues that Bulgakov’s polemic against Aquinas and the neoscholastics was in part due to his location in Paris. As an emigrant, he was afforded the status of an ethnic and religious minority. Catholicism dominated the theological landscape in France. Neo-scholastism was the dominant Catholic theological tradition that Bulgakov and his Orthodox contemporaries found themselves competing against. (Bruce Marshall, “Ex Occidente Lux? Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox Theology,” (Modern Theology 20.1 (January 2004): pp. 23–50), p. 24.) Bulgakov, BB, p. 38. On Bulgakov’s rejection of the scholastic abstraction of grace from nature see Bulgakov, BB, p. 17. Regarding his alternative expression on grace, see Bulgakov, BB, pp. 18, 38–39. Cf. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 187; Bulgakov, BL, p. 305. Andrew Louth, “Father Sergii Bulgakov on the Mother of God,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quaterly 49 (2005): pp. 145–164), p. 153. Quentin Quesnell, “Grace” in The New Dictionary of Theology, Edited by Joseph A. Komonchak, pp. 437–450, (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1987), pp. 444–446. Valliere, MRT, p. 351. Bulgakov, BL, p. 225. Ibid., p. 305. Bulgakov maintains that all spiritual beings are graced; thus even Satan is graced since Satan has spiritual life and being. (Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 1, Location 3377 of 6301.) Bulgakov, BL, p. 305. Boris Jakim, “Sergius Bulgakov: Russian Theosis” in Partakers of Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, Edited by Michael J. Christensen, pp. 250–258, (Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2007), p. 253. Valliere, MRT, p. 352. Graves, p. 83. Bulgakov, BB, p. 18. Without grace humankind would be merely a material being and monohypostatic, “an egoist incapable of loving.” (Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 190.) More on this will be said below. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 68. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 4, Sec. 2, Location 2975 of 6301. Cf. Bulgakov, BB, p. 35. Ibid., p. 40. Ibid., p. 39. Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 2, Sec. 4, Location 2626 of 7314. Bulgakov writes: “She was ‘full of grace,’ overshadowed even prior to the Incarnation by the constant illuminations of the Holy Spirit.” Bulgakov speaks of Mary as the “maximal sophianization of the human nature” that is realized by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon her. (Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 2, Sec. 4, Location 2958 of 7314.)

112

Theological anthropology and Mary

180 Cf. Legisa, p. 50. 181 Bulgakov, BL, p. 302. 182 Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 1, Location 3128 of 6301. Cosmologically speaking, the Holy Spirit prompts creation to resist the chaos of nothing, which is the correlative of creation due to creation’s creation out of nothing. The activity of the Spirit in nature makes the natural world through human agency prepared to receive the Holy Spirit’s personal descent. (Graves, p. iv.) 183 Cf. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 72. 184 Ibid., p. 16. 185 Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 2, Location 3319 of 6301. 186 Bulgakov, BL, 305. Note that the life of grace is primarily related to the Holy Spirit, whose function is to realize the Son’s revelation of the Father. Nevertheless, grace involves the entire Trinity. Grace is an adoption by the Holy Spirit that also involves the realization of Christ in the world so that with the Apostle Paul we can say “Not I, but Christ liveth in me.” (Bulgakov, BL, p. 305.) Grace exists because it is the Father’s will. 187 Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 73. 188 Bulgakov writes: “the duality of the natures in man, his eternal divine-humanity, makes possible the deification of life, the inseparable and inconfusable communion of the two natures in man.” (Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 1, Sec. 1, Location 1355–1356 of 7314.) 189 Bulgakov insists that Christ was a pure male. This is because he is the Incarnation of the divine Son, he is the image of masculinity. 190 Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 3, Sec. 4, Location 2937 of 7314. 191 Legisa, pp. 56–57.

5

Bulgakov’s Mariology

Bulgakov’s Mariology is situated within his Sophiology that stresses the synergy between God and humankind. Mary is Sophia inasmuch as she is the actualization of Godhumanhood from the perspective of humankind (i.e., she demonstrates how God involves humankind in God’s revelation and saving work). She is the perfect human and created face of Sophia; for this reason, she may be properly identified as creaturely Sophia. However, her exceptional role has less to do with her election by God, but rather her holiness, exemplary humility, and fidelity to God that will allow her to personally partake in the Paschal Mystery and the salvation of the human race. Mary is situated squarely within the Church, and thus Bulgakov proffers an ecclesio-typical Mariology. However, she is the Church’s first and greatest member but also fully participates in the realization of the Church in heaven; as such, she is the eschatological anticipation of the Church realized. Bulgakov provides what is by no means a minimalist Mariology or a Mariology that circumscribes Mary’s role simply to the Incarnation or subjective co-redemption. Rather he interprets the Orthodox hymn “Most Holy Theotokos Save Us” literally. His Sophiology provides him with the tools to express that Mary is not simply a representative human personality that participates fully in her deification to which all people are called, but rather she actively saves us or, more precisely, intercedes on behalf of all people and is intimately involved in the salvation of humankind. For these reasons, Bulgakov honors her with the title the “soul of the world.” However, “soul of the world” is not simply a sophiological title, but pneumatological title insofar as the Holy Spirit is intimately involved in creation and the life and work of the Mother of God. As the creaturely expression of Sophia, Mary is preeminently the pneumatophoric hypostasis. In a sense, as the pneumatophoric hypostasis, she is also creaturely Sophia because it is the Holy Spirit Who enables Mary to become creaturely Sophia as Mary’s role within creaturely Sophia works in concert with the Holy Spirit’s economic mission. Sophiology articulates how this is possible. Drawing primarily from his books The Burning Bush, The Comforter, and The Bride of the Lamb, this chapter explains the salient features his doctrine that Mary is pneumatophoric hypostasis that will, in turn, provide a better

114

Bulgakov’s Mariology

understanding of the implications as to what it means to say that Mary is the “soul of the world.” To this end, the first part of this chapter examines Bulgakov’s doctrine of the pneumatophoric hypostasis and theology of synergy relevant to my study. Because Bulgakov juxtaposes his Mariology against the dogma of the Immaculate Conception,1 I will evaluate his interpretation of this dogma and his alternative expression of Mary’s sinlessness in more detail. The second and third parts expand upon part one. They examine the vocational element of Bulgakov’s theology of the pneumatophoric hypostasis. Although Mary becomes the pneumatophoric hypostasis at the Annunciation, she does not fully realize her new existence until her glorification that required a series of personal trials. The second part addresses the stages of Mary’s development into the pneumatophoric hypostasis. This will include a discussion of these themes: Mary’s templification, betrothal to St. Joseph, virginity, Annunciation and the Cross, the Pentecost, and the Dormition and Glorification. The third part will examine Mary’s relationships with Sophia, the angels, the Church, the ecumenical movement, and the final judgment. The fourth part examines Bulgakov’s extension of Mary’s relationship to Christians and the criticism that Bulgakov’s Mariology insufficiently considers Christ’s relationship to the Holy Spirit.

Part 1: Mary: the pneumatophoric hypostasis “Pneumatophoric hypostasis” is Bulgakov’s neologism; however, it has a precedent in the Orthodox tradition since it is a derivative of the commonly used term pneumatophoros or Spirit-bearer. As Petro B.J. Bilaniuk demonstrates, beginning with the writings of the Shepherd of Hermas (circa 150 CE) pneumatophoros or Spirit-bearer2 has been employed throughout the Orthodox tradition.3 However within Orthodoxy “Spirit-bearer” and “pneumatophoros” are used primarily in these contexts: in reference to great ascetic saints, for example, St. Macarius the Spirit-bearer, the monastic life,4 and in reference to a general call to holiness. Intimately aware of the latter definition, Kallistos Ware in his classic introductory work to Orthodoxy, The Orthodox Way, writes: “the whole aim of Christian life is to be a Spirit-bearer, to live in the Spirit of God.”5 Bulgakov was aware of these different usages and in fact employs them in these different senses; however, his use of them in reference to Mary demonstrates that he intended to situate his Mariology squarely within Orthodox pneumatology, discipleship, and ecclesiology as opposed to the creation of a separate theological discipline (e.g., Orthodox Mariology). For these reasons, Bulgakov also uses “Spirit-bearer” and “pneumatophoric hypostasis” as synonyms for divine motherhood. However, “pneumatophoric hypostasis” is his mariological title. Thus, although all Christians including Mary are Spirit-bearers, only Mary is the “pneumatophoric hypostasis.” Bulgakov’s exclusive usage of pneumatophoric hypostasis with respect to Mary demonstrates a unique relationship

Bulgakov’s Mariology

115

between Mary and the Holy Spirit. The uniqueness of this relationship is a result of the facts that she participates in the historical life-giving work of the Holy Spirit, insofar, as she gives life to the incarnate, divine Son as his mother at the Annunciation, and the degree to which she unites with the Holy Spirit has not and cannot be attained by other human hypostases. Cognizant of the general call to Spirit-bearing but the uniqueness of Mary’s Spirit-bearing, Bulgakov calls Mary the “Pneumatophore in the proper sense.”6 This should not set Mary apart from humanity, but rather a sober realization that although humankind is called to emulate and participate with the Holy Spirit as Mary did, no creature will approach the intimacy or degree of adoption that Mary shares with the Holy Spirit.7 Recalling my discussion in Chapter 2 on Bulgakov’s dialectical interpretation of the Council of Ephesus’s teaching on the Theotokos, Mary is the pneumatophoric hypostasis because she is completely united to the extent possible for a creature to be united to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. However, Bulgakov does not argue that Mary is the Holy Spirit’s incarnation. His approach is much more nuanced: the Holy Spirit fully encompasses her personality, but she does not encompass the personality of the Holy Spirit. Mary’s hypostasis is fully penetrated or adopted by the Holy Spirit; however, it is not consumed or destroyed by the Holy Spirit, as Mary’s human hypostasis and soul remain. Expressed in Catholic and Orthodox devotion, Mary is properly the temple of the Holy Spirit because not only is she “the temple that the Holy Spirit came to inhabit”8 but also Mary participates in the “hypostatic motherhood”9 of the Holy Spirit. The upshot of this is that the Holy Spirit’s mission after Pentecost is her mission, but also the Holy Spirit’s countenance shines through her own. Always the systematician, Bulgakov’s perspectives on Mary’s motherhood and the Holy Spirit’s motherhood intersect: Mary participates intimately in the Holy Spirit’s motherhood in as much as she not only become the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit on earth at her Annunciation and therein is the means for the Holy Spirit to vivify the hypostatic union,10 but also Mary participates in the mission of the Holy Spirit post-Pentecost, to give birth to Christians, and for this reason Mary is the Mother of the Church and all Christians therein. Just as she was adopted by the Holy Spirit into the Holy Spirit’s life and economic mission, she beckons all people to be adopted by the Holy Spirit, to become her spiritual sons and daughters. Mary and the Immaculate Conception For this reason, motherhood is a central principle in his Mariology. Motherhood is the principle from which Bulgakov is able to elucidate Mary’s relationship to the Holy Spirit, which will entail Mary’s role in the Holy Spirit’s economic mission and relationship to Sophia. This of course raises the question: how is it possible for a human being to participate in the motherhood

116

Bulgakov’s Mariology

of the Holy Spirit and to become the Mother of God? Bulgakov develops his answer to this question along a different line of argument in contradistinction to neo-scholastic responses to this question. His approach stresses synergy and avoids what he deems the error of Western Christian theology that relies inordinately on abstraction and not the biblical narrative. According to Bulgakov, this error is all too apparent in the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Protestant heresy that Mary was sinful and ignores the holiness of the prophets and Old Testament saints. Catholic and Protestant arguments are based on an abstract understanding of God’s omnipotence that either neglects Mary’s volition (error of Catholic teaching) or ignores Mary and the role of the Old Testament in preparation for the Incarnation (error of Protestant teaching). To the contrary, God works with and not over and against human volition. The divine-human synergy that is the foundation of both the old and new covenants are premised upon God’s respect for human freedom. The very fact that God incarnates as opposed to arbitrarily restores humanity to its edenic state is evidence of the importance Scripture places on human freedom. Bulgakov articulates how divine motherhood is possible within this context. Much of Bulgakov’s thought on Mary is juxtaposed to Western Christian thought. Interestingly, Bulgakov will not entertain the classic Protestant position that Mary was sinful beyond his observation that this position is sacrilegious and heterodox. However, he spends quite a bit of space examining and articulating the Orthodox position in response to the Immaculate Conception in his minor and major trilogies. This was no doubt due to the fact that not only was the Immaculate Conception well-known, especially within the Russian Diaspora communities in Paris and abroad, but there is no official Orthodox teaching of Mary’s sinlessness, and in fact, prominent Russians including Solov’ev accepted the Immaculate Conception. Albeit consistently critical of the dogma, Bulgakov did not completely reject the teaching of the Immaculate Conception. In his The Friend of the Bridegroom, Bulgakov suggests that the Immaculate Conception is in agreement with his thought provided that God’s providential guidance is emphasized as opposed to Mary’s inordinate exemption that prevented lust or sinfulness of the original sin from affecting the Mother of God.11 However, if this was the case, then the Immaculate Conception of John the Baptist must be affirmed. Admittedly, this position has little affinity with Pope Pius IX’s dogmatic decree Ineffabilis Deus that teaches that Mary was exempt from the original sin by “a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ.”12 But for Bulgakov, this is where Catholics missed the mark: Catholic teaching that Mary must be personally sinless in order to allow for humankind and creation to receive God hypostatically13 is spot on, but to suggest that Mary’s sinlessness merely was a result of the divine election is not tenable.14 Bulgakov’s rejection of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception has, in fact, several main prongs that he explicates in The Burning Bush. First, he argues that the manner in which it was

Bulgakov’s Mariology

117

defined was illicit. Bulgakov takes up the traditional Orthodox polemic that the Pope has no authority to define a dogma. Second, he argues the doctrine is based on a fallacious anthropology that presumes that pure human nature exists and that this nature is inherently sinful. In this account, the original sin is precisely the stripping away of God’s supernatural grace from humanity, leaving humanity in its natural, sinful state. God then returns this original grace to Mary. Owing to his sophiological method, he finds this to be a groundless abstraction since the first premise of Sophiology is that God is always in communion with humankind.15 Third, the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception violates Mary’s free will and personal accomplishment. Mary is an exception to creation rather than – what Bulgakov thinks is most important – the pinnacle of creation and human holiness. Moreover, the dogma ignores her freedom. Fourth, death is a penalty of the original sin, and Mary died. His main argument against Catholicism evident in the second and third criticism is that Catholicism resorts to abstraction because it lacks Sophiology, namely a means to explain Mary’s sinlessness as an expression of the divine-human relationship in the economy of salvation (Godhumanhood). For us to know God personally, God must descend to us and speak in our idiom. This occurs in Christ, in whom God is fully disclosed.16 Christ is Godhumanhood realized; Christ is the fullest expression of the divine-human synergy. However, this is only made possible by Mary, in whom God finds a willing and capable human partner to whom God can reveal Godself to humanity.17 The fiat of Mary is a cosmological event because it represents the moment in history where a creature was able to accept God’s offer of God’s friendship freely and completely without hesitation or self-interest. As I mentioned in the previous chapter, Mary’s humble fiat is the achievement of not only Mary’s perfect faith but also all the blessed persons before her. Bulgakov’s synergistic account of Mary’s sinlessness that involves her ancestors, family, and her personal holiness is in stark contrast to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception may allow for the Incarnation, but it does so at the cost of Godhumanhood, breaking down the relationship of God to humankind, as it ignores the faith accomplishments of Mary’s ancestors. It is a de facto replacement of the God of the Scriptures whom we encounter personally with deus ex machina. The economy of salvation becomes the arbitrary work of an arbitrary God, who has an “anthropomorphic will” as opposed to an absolute will.18 Therefore, the Immaculate Conception does not simply supply an erroneous expression of a correct idea but is suggestive of an alternative expression of the economy of salvation that is not in accord with Orthodox teaching. God’s inordinate action in the Immaculate Conception sacrifices the Old Testament, which becomes relegated to a history of God’s arbitrary actions. For Bulgakov, this is an aberration because it breaks the solidarity of the new and old covenants and the human race. Bulgakov writes, “[heaven] could not come down to the earth if the earth had not received heaven.”19 In the holiness of

118

Bulgakov’s Mariology

Mary’s ancestors and finally in the person of Mary “earth receives heaven” and Mary becomes the “New Eve” who realizes God’s will for her and the human race “in obedience in love and self-sacrifice.”20 His polemics go further to argue that the Immaculate Conception is suggestive of a puerile anthropomorphism; Bulgakov picks up the traditional rejection of Duns Scotus’s argument for the Immaculate Conception: if it is fitting for the perfect Redeemer to save at least one person from contracting the original sin to allow for his conception without sin, then it should also be fitting that the perfect Redeemer extends this exemption to the rest of humanity.21 For Bulgakov, the only reasonable response supporters of the Immaculate Conception can make is to stress God’s divine prerogatives and ability to grant privileges to whomever God pleases. But for Bulgakov, this is a contradiction of Orthodox understanding about God; God is eternal and absolute. Therefore, every action of God has eternal significance, and moreover, God does not proceed by way of privileges because God works with and in humanity.22 This is precisely the reason God does not simply redeem humankind with a lightning bolt from heaven, but rather redeems humankind from within, becoming human and working with human nature and human limitation, never against it. This is the nature of Godhumanhood, the synergy between humanity and God. Mary is the fruit of this synergy since she bears the effects of her ancestors’ good works and prayers, which nullify the sinfulness of the original sin. The result is that the original sin had no effect on her regarding her attraction to sin/disobedience/nothingness, but rather it is circumscribed to the infirmity of nature associated with the original sin. However, Bulgakov’s polemic with Catholic teaching failed to take into account the distinction between removing the stain of sin versus the debt to sin. He conflates these two issues. Catholic teaching as defined by Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception deliberately left open to debate the question about Mary’s relationship to the debt of sin, which may be expressed using Bulgakov’s idiom as her infirmity of nature.23 Marie-Joseph Nicolas, in fact, an important Thomist in the mid-twentieth century, argued that stain removed from Mary was her natural “non-orderedness to grace” or her natural desire not to have grace.24 The debt to sin remained in as much as the effect of the original sin in terms of death and infirmity remain. Although this explanation is much more in line with Bulgakov’s thought, it would no doubt still fail to satisfy Bulgakov because it neither takes into the sophiological account of creation that entails the natural orderedness of nature to grace nor considers the synergy of Mary’s ancestors that prepares humanity for Mary’s personal sinlessness. Yet Bulgakov would agree that Mary suffered from the effect of sin that he expressed as “infirmity of nature” as mortality or “hunger and thirst, fatigue and the need for sleep,”25 but also natural death.26 Bulgakov adds that the Holy Spirit removed from Mary’s “suffering and bodily pain” that presumably would have been included in her infirm nature.27 Bulgakov’s insistence on this point is based on his typological reading of Genesis 3:16 and the

Bulgakov’s Mariology

119

tradition that the birth of Christ was painless for Mary. The typology of the New Adam and New Eve narrative plays an important role in Bulgakov’s thought. Mary’s pain in childbirth was removed in accord with prelapsarian birth. However, this is an unnecessary speculation and weakens Bulgakov’s case against the Immaculate Conception and alternative synergistic explanation of Mary’s sinless state, since Mary receives a privilege from the Holy Spirit that no other woman receives. Nevertheless, the infirmity of Mary’s nature leads Bulgakov to another argument against the Immaculate Conception, namely the feast of the Dormition of Mary. For Bulgakov, following the dominant Christian tradition, death is the result of the original sin. The Dormition of Mary celebrates the falling asleep, a trope for the death of Mary. If Mary was freed from the original sin, then she should not have died. This point is poignant when due consideration is taken regarding the neo-scholastic treatment of the Immaculate Conception as the return of the donum superadditum to Mary, which suggests that like Adam and Eve before the original sin natural death was excluded.28 Yet the Catholic Church erroneously teaches the contrary that Mary died, and, in fact, celebrates Mary’s death and resurrection during the feast of the Assumption. Bulgakov brings to the attention of his readers an important argument; however, this argument also illustrates his shortcoming. Within the Catholic context, Mary’s death is not clearly taught. However, within the Orthodox and Catholic traditions, the dominant tradition is that Mary died. Nevertheless, Bulgakov tends to overgeneralize about Catholicism as well as fail to take into due consideration the ambiguity of Orthodox teachings. (Bulgakov does not take seriously Orthodox theologians, albeit a minority, which accepted the Immaculate Conception.) About the former, Bulgakov’s sustained argument against the Immaculate Conception that is published in The Burning Bush is directed primarily against Matthias Scheeben’s Mariology.29 Granted that before Karl Rahner, Matthias Scheeben was the most influential German theologians and perhaps the most influential mariologists in the early twentieth century; he was by no means the only Catholic theologian. Bulgakov’s main arguments are aimed at the legalism of Scheeben’s neoscholastic interpretation of the Immaculate Conception,30 but also Scheeben’s abstract consideration of grace and human nature as two separate realities that were representative of the dominant neo-scholastic schools in Catholicism. Specifically, Bulgakov rejected Scheeben’s idea that pure human nature was inherently mortal and prone to sin; while grace was a donum superadditum that bestows eternal life. Although this interpretation of grace stresses the gratuity of grace, it also presents human nature as naturally deficient. For Bulgakov, this is offensive since it suggests that God created human nature as prone to sin. In The Bride of the Lamb, Bulgakov calls donum superadditum blasphemous because it attributes “to the Creator a failure in creation.”31 God is liable for the original sin in some sense since God created human beings as prone to sin, a sin that can only be corrected

120

Bulgakov’s Mariology

by God’s action. But this theology is a far cry from the loving and tender God who is present in the Scriptures and the life of the Orthodox Church. Thus abstract and legalistic arguments should not have any role in theology since theology expresses the living, organic divine-human synergy between humankind and God. The Catholic position is indicative of a weak anthropology that fails to take into serious consideration the biblical account of creation; God created humankind in God’s image and likeness, and therefore, humankind is inherently blessed. (By blessing he means sophianic grace that is addressed in the above chapter.) Nevertheless, even if we grant that Bulgakov defeated his sparring partner, his criticism cannot extend to official Catholic teaching, as Scheeben’s ideas (e.g., pure nature) are not official Catholic teachings.32 Furthermore, the Catholic tradition contemporaneous to Bulgakov was not monolithic. This is not to mention that during Bulgakov’s lifetime there was a ressourcement movement within Catholicism that included Catholic theologians such as Henri de Lubac, who expressed discontent with neo-scholastic treatments of grace and nature. Lubac shied away from the scholastic arguments regarding Mary’s Immaculate Conception but rather justified the dogma on the basis that the dogma expresses the consciousness of the Church.33 Ressourcement theology proffered what would later be called an ecclesiotypical Mariology, or a Mariology that returned to the ancient sources of the mariological tradition, particularly the scriptures, patristic tradition, and the liturgy.34 Many of the questions they sought to answer, namely how Mary is the origin of the Church; Mary’s relationship to the Church as a prototypical member, and her role in the Church as an eschatological icon were questions that Bulgakov asked and addresses in his works, particularly his The Bride of the Lamb. Bulgakov, therefore, presents a caricature of Catholic Mariology that ignores the nuances within Catholic mariological discussions occurring in his lifetime. He relies inordinately on the state of pure nature and presents Catholic doctrine within an erroneous deus ex machina framework.35 Moreover, Bulgakov ignores the nuances within the scholastic mariologies. As Fredrick Jelly, a notable mariologist, illustrates, within scholastic mariological tradition there were at least two dominant perspectives on the issue of Mary’s death: the immortalists, those who deny that Mary died without necessarily agreeing that sin is linked to death – though the implication is clear – and the mortalists, who accept that Mary was mortal and that mortality is a consequence of sin.36 Matthias Scheeben was a proponent of the mortalist position. He argues that although Mary was exempted from death because of her Immaculate Conception, for death is the penalty of the original sin. Nevertheless, Mary dies out of love. Her death has no expiatory significance. Two renowned expositors of Scheeben’s thought, Wilhelm and Scannell, provide further insight on Scheeben’s view; they argue that, for Scheeben, Mary’s loving desire to be with her Son either dissolved the bonds of body and soul or availed herself to God so completely

Bulgakov’s Mariology

121

that God had pity on her and miraculously intervened by allowing her death, which allowed her to be reunited with her Son in heaven.37 I have little doubt that Bulgakov would find this position anymore convincing since it relies on privileges that are out of sync with Godhumanhood. Nevertheless, between the two world wars there was a vibrant discussion about Mary’s death among the mortalist and immortalist mariologists producing various nuanced positions, including the position that Mary’s Immaculate Conception or exception from the original sin necessitated that she had the ability not to suffer natural death. However, the Immaculate Conception did not necessitate that she avoid death. God could have willed the death of Mary because of her intimate relationship and configuration to the passion of her Son. Aware of this discussion, the Catholic Church in its official teaching remains intentionally ambiguous about the topic of Mary’s death. The Catholic Church has never spoken dogmatically about Mary’s death, and when opportunities have arisen for it to do so, for example, Pope Pius XII’s apostolic exhortation, “Munificentissimus Deus” that defined the dogma of the Assumption, the Magisterium did not address if Mary died. Pope Pius XII wrote: “Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. [emphasis added].”38 The phrase expleto terrestris vitae cursu (having completed the course of her earthly life) was crafted to satisfy both the mortalists and immortalists. The point is that Bulgakov glosses over this vibrant and technical debate about Mary’s death and the implication of her death or lack thereof for the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Despite these shortcomings in Bulgakov’s analysis of Catholic Mariology, he offers important insights about the Mother of God in his rejection of Catholic Mariology. This being the case, Bulgakov’s treatment of the Mother of God is anthropologically centered. He interprets the Marian tradition anew from the side of the human subject. Bulgakov stresses Mary’s maturation in the life of faith. Even though Bulgakov presents a caricature of Catholic Mariology, his overarching criticisms are not easily addressed. If we grant his speculations on Godhumanhood and salvation history as a synergy between God and humankind are correct, how can theologies of exceptional privilege be granted? Even though Bulgakov is not always consistent on this point, he will argue that they cannot be granted, and to do so is nonetheless a denial of the divine-human relationship that is ratified in the Council of Chalcedon’s teaching on the hypostatic union, that God does not overcome human nature, but rather works with it.39 Therefore, the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception not only attributes an arbitrary action of God that is out of sync with the rest of Scripture’s account of God but robs Mary and the human race’s involvement in Mary’s exceptional state. Mary gives Christ a fully hypostatic human nature. By this he means that

122

Bulgakov’s Mariology

Christ receives Mary’s human nature that is blessed through her choices and her ancestors’ actions.40

Part II: the preparation for the pneumatophoric hypostasis Temple virgin Following Irenaeus of Lyons, who argued that Adam and Eve in their prelapsarian state were immature and in need of spiritual growth, Bulgakov argues that Mary as the New Eve needed to mature in the spiritual life.41 The spiritual energy of her forbearers and her special conception make her participation in the Incarnation as the Theotokos possible. Possibility is not a guarantee. Mary needed to actualize this vocation, to mature in her faith and relationship with God so as to be prepared for the Incarnation. Herein lies, for Bulgakov, the importance of the inclusion of the feast of Mary’s entrance into the Temple in the Orthodox liturgical calendar, for it provides evidence of Mary’s spiritual growth that helped prepare her to give her complete and unreserved fiat at the Annunciation. In the Temple, Mary achieves what is for Bulgakov the true goal of monastic/ascetic Christian existence, to become a passionless human through her prayer and fasting.42 By passionless he means the complete detachment from lust or desire for anything save God. The importance of her experience as a temple experience is that it eradicated the possibility of personal sin; sin has no attraction whatsoever to Mary. Although she was born without the sinfulness associated with original sin, as a being with a free will, she could have sinned. In order to give her fiat in response to Gabriel’s acclamation that Mary would be the Theotokos, her fiat or total acceptance of the task of being the Theotokos must totally encompass her will and desire; the attraction to sin, which in Bulgakov’s account is related to pride or selfishness, must be entirely overcome. To accomplish this task, Mary must take up an “angelic habit” and devote herself entirely to prayer and fasting.43 Like any nun who dedicates herself to the contemplative life, contemplation requires heroic effort. Well aware of Mary’s influence on nuns, Bulgakov argues that she is “the First Nun”; however, her monastic period was only a preparatory period for her mystical experience of divine motherhood.44 Nevertheless, this period was formative in Mary’s life inasmuch as Mary is depicted as a contemplative personality in the Gospels. Particularly in the Lucan narrative, Mary does not simply react to a situation but in a characteristically contemplative manner “ponders” and “treasures” her experiences within her heart (Lk 2: 19, 51). Because the Gospels are silent about Mary’s Temple experience, Bulgakov looks primarily to the Feast of Entrance into the Temple of Our Lady The Most Holy Theotokos, which is undoubtedly influenced by the Protoevangelium of James that provides the earliest account of Mary’s Temple experience. Two hymns, in particular, chanted in this feast were formative for

Bulgakov’s Mariology

123

Bulgakov’s thought: “[s]he [Mary] is the heavenly tabernacle” and “[t]oday is the prelude of God’s pleasure and the proclamation of man’s salvation . . . Lets us cry out to her with mighty voice, ‘Hail, fulfillment of the Creator’s dispensation.”45 Following these liturgical verses that portray Mary’s entrance into the Temple as a triumph for humanity, a foretaste of what is to come, Bulgakov finds in this experience good reason to believe that Mary did not sin before her Annunciation. As a Temple Virgin or as a member of a community of women who helped the Temple priests administer offerings to the Lord, Bulgakov finds it unlikely that Mary sinned, as there would have been little occasion for her to do so. There is no evidence from Tradition or Scripture that Mary sinned before her Annunciation. Moreover, he accepts the tradition that St. Anne, Mary’s mother, brought Mary to the Temple at the age of three to be raised before God until her betrothal to Joseph of Nazareth. Only the Temple, the place where God encounters humankind, provides a suitable place on earth for Mary’s spiritual growth and preparation for the Incarnation.46 Before the Incarnation, the Temple was the place where God’s power and presence rested. Given Bulgakov’s stress on the continuity between the Old and New Testaments, Mary becomes the embodied transition between the covenants. She is truly the New Temple, or more specifically the holy of holies, the tabernacle, corresponding to the New Covenant. She is the living temple of God from which the New Covenant, a covenant that is written on hearts, which transforms persons and elicits conversion, is born. Interestingly, this argument is strengthened when we consider that the Second Temple, which was the Temple contemporaneous to Mary, did not contain the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant or the Holy of Holies that housed the presence of God was lost or destroyed after the destruction of the First Temple. The Second Temple was an empty shell! It was a temple-in-waiting for the return of the Ark of the Covenant to the Temple. Mary ushers in a new era whereby God does not simply return the Ark of the Covenant but establishes a new and living Ark that will usher forth a new event, the Incarnation. With this in mind, Mary’s early life as the “Temple Virgin” that was dedicated to God at the place where God once inhabited the earth prepares her to be the new inhabitation of God, the new Temple; she will restore to Israel, God’s presence on earth. Her womb and personality become the living temple of God, which the New Testament reveals is the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19–20). Bulgakov refers to the years that Mary spent at the Temple as her process of templification.47 He conflates the traditional title that Mary is the “Temple of the Holy Spirit” with the function of the Temple in the Old Testament as the meeting place between God and humankind. During her time in the Temple,48 Mary accomplishes the “human side” of sanctification process; she makes herself “an altar for divine power.”49 It is here that Mary exhausts sophianic grace. Just as the First Temple was the “God-bearing” place on earth, after her heroic human efforts, Mary becomes the God-bearer,50 who is now prepared to receive God. In this way, Mary receives the power of the Temple’s consecration,51

124

Bulgakov’s Mariology

and in doing so, she makes the Second Temple obsolete, for as the Mother of God, she receives God incarnate. Through her choice and in her womb, God personally enters the world. Nevertheless, the graces imparted to humankind through the Temple sacrifices and prayers (i.e., the ordinary means of sophianic grace) were efficacious during and before Mary’s role as a Temple virgin. In this reading of salvation history, the Temple had a preparatory function for God’s incarnation.52 Whereas before the Incarnation, God encountered humankind and humankind encounters God through the intermediary of the Temple, now in the womb of Mary, God enters the world personally. The advent of the Incarnation means that the earth is now hallowed because God enters the earth and becomes human. Mary is not simply a new Temple for God’s power to dwell in creation but specifically the living Temple in whom both the persons of Holy Spirit and the Son have resided.53 Overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, Mary becomes “the true place of divine dwelling.”54 Mary’s templification to an extent prefigures the templification of all baptized Christians to become the temple of the Holy Spirit. However, most importantly, through Mary, the Son of God unites without confusion the divine nature and the human nature, hypostatically entering the world. St. Joseph Mary’s templification has significance for the nation of Israel because it represents not only the personal-spiritual development of Mary in preparation for the Incarnation but also the final step in the development of Israel and the human race for the Incarnation.55 However, the Incarnation required not only Mary’s preparation in the Temple, but also her betrothal to a worthy spouse, providing a righteous, Jewish household for Mary and Jesus,56 and a davidic genealogy, fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies.57 St. Joseph fulfills this function; he is the guardian of Jesus and Mary and aids in Mary’s vocation as the Theotokos. Joseph provides Jesus with a Jewish upbringing while guarding both Mary and her Son in a world, which would have been otherwise hostile to them. Like his wife, Mary, Joseph has a typological function. If Mary is the new Temple, then Joseph functions as the new Temple priest who administers to the needs of the Temple.58 Though this is not explicit in Bulgakov’s thought, his typological portrayal of Mary and Joseph’s marriage provides us with an argument for Mary’s perpetual virginity. Just as the priest would not touch the Ark of the Covenant, the bearer of God’s power, St. Joseph would not have had intercourse with the Mother of God, the bearer of God’s Spirit. This also explains Bulgakov’s reticence toward a theology of the Holy Family and preference for the titles “Betrothed” and “Guardian” as opposed to “Husband” for Joseph, Bulgakov argues that the marriage was never consummated. Bulgakov notes that the Gospels only speak of a betrothal of Joseph and Mary (Matt 1:18; Luke 1:27) and never their marriage.59 Bulgakov does not advocate argumentum ex silentio that

Bulgakov’s Mariology

125

the lack of information about their marriage means that the marriage did not occur, but rather that the lack of information about their marriage, coupled with the fact that Jesus’s “mild” distinction between his nominal Father and his heavenly Father (Lk 2:49–51), and the dominant patristic tradition that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and that Joseph was advanced in age, around eighty years old, when he married Mary – he was most likely incapable of sexual intercourse – gives good reason to think that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary, yet he was a devoted guardian of Mary and Jesus.60 Together as Virgin-Mother and Betrothed, Mary and Joseph are prepared to receive Christ in the Incarnation. However, Bulgakov adds that Joseph is not simply a holy man but “the bearer of all the Old Testament righteousness, the personification of the Old Testament Church.”61 In this way, the first two chapters of Luke and Matthew, which are the only places in the New Testament that speak about Joseph, are transitional and a prelude to Jesus’s life, ministry, and saving events. This is not to discount other persons who had an important role in preparation for the Incarnation. None of these figures were worthy to be the foster father of the Savior of the world, and thus approach Joseph’s righteousness. Bulgakov’s underlying logic is an argument of fittingness and synergy. For Bulgakov, it is most fitting that God chooses Joseph and Mary be the “foster father” and Mother of God respectively. They were the best persons to fit that vocation due to their faith and love for God. To suggest that God could have used any sinner to fulfill these vocations is an arbitrary speculation that Bulgakov does not seriously entertain. It is a speculation that fails to consider salvation history, namely how and why God was working with humankind throughout the Old Testament to prepare it for the Incarnation. It lacks dialogue with the “synergy” between God and humankind in salvation history. It is out of sync with the God of the Old Testament, who works with humankind to fulfill God’s will for humankind’s salvation. Revelation is dialogical; it requires willing recipients. Joseph and Mary in a sense were the most willing to accept their roles in the Incarnation and the childhood of Jesus Christ. With Joseph, Zachariah, Elizabeth, Simeon, and Anna are confined to this transitional and preparatory phase of salvation history. Bulgakov finds confirmation of this fact by not only the lack of information about Joseph after chapter 2 in the infancy narratives but also the tradition, with respect to Joseph, that stipulates that Joseph died before Jesus begins his ministry.62 It is perhaps the work of providence that Joseph’s life and vocation that is representative of the Old Testament Church end before the establishment and beginning of the New Testament Church. Nevertheless, Bulgakov is quick to guard against what he deemed “dogmatic hyperbole” or overemphasis of Catholic teaching on Joseph’s place in salvation history.63 The silence of Scripture about Joseph as well as well as the scriptural testimony that identifies Christ not as the son of Joseph, but rather “the son of David, son of Abraham” (Matt 1:1) and Joseph as “husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus” (Matt 1:16) do not warrant Joseph’s role as one of the most important saints in the Catholic

126

Bulgakov’s Mariology

Church. Joseph’s place is among the “patriarchs and ancestors of the Savior” among whom he has a distinguished place; however, he is not properly a member of the New Testament Church, and moreover, he does not approach the holiness or importance of Mary.64 For this reason, Bulgakov takes offense to Roman Catholic altars that place a sculpture of Mary adjacent to a sculpture of Joseph. This positioning suggests equality in holiness. Returning to his theological axiom of lex orandi, lex credendi, prayer should determine theology. The misplacement of Joseph as second to or on an equal footing with the Mother of God in Catholic Churches has led to an impoverished theological understanding of St. Joseph in salvation history. Only the “greatest born of woman” (Matt 11:11) John the Baptist can even approach the Mother of God in holiness. This is the underlying explanation as to why the Orthodox Church places Mary adjacent to John the Baptist on its iconostasis. Needless to say, if Joseph is the greatest expression of Old Testament righteousness, Mary is the fruit of this righteousness, and the beginning and the final expression of New Testament/Churchly righteousness, the “head and glory” of humanity.65 This provocative idea is based on the fact that Mary is the only person besides Christ who appears in the infancy narratives of Luke and Matthew and continues to appear throughout the Gospel accounts. (The only other exception is St. John the Baptist; however, as we shall see below, he also has a special significance.) Interestingly, as opposed to the dominant Catholic tradition that St. Joseph was a virgin when he married Mary, Bulgakov argues that Joseph was a widower with children from a previous marriage.66 Bulgakov’s portrayal of Joseph follows not only a dominant Orthodox and patristic tradition but an early Christian tradition evidenced in the Protoevangelium of James (circa 200 C.E.). Bulgakov finds grace in the tradition that Joseph as a mature widower and parent because it illustrates that Joseph was an experienced father and husband. He would have used his experience to provide Mary and Jesus with the best home possible. His children serve a necessary function for the Incarnation since they provide Jesus with a fully human family complete with siblings,67 as St. Gregory of Nazianzus wrote: “[t]hat which was not assumed is not healed, but that which is united to God is saved.” To redeem the family, it is fitting that in the Incarnation God enters the human family. After all, family life is an essential human experience; it is “the school of humanity.”68 Therefore Jesus’s family more fully brings God into the human family and therefore allows Christ to redeem the family and the peculiarities associated with family life.69 Within this context, righteous Joseph and Mary provide Christ with the context to help facilitate the mission of Christ by teaching him the path of holiness. The Burning Bush and virginity The icon of The Burning Bush is based on a mariological interpretation of Moses’s Theophany, where the power of God consumes without burning the

Bulgakov’s Mariology

127

bush on Mount Sinai (Ex 3).70 For Orthodox Christians, the Burning Bush prefigures Mary’s theophany,71 the Annunciation, when Mary was not only overshadowed by the Holy Spirit but through the Holy Spirit, the second person of the Trinity incarnated in her womb. Playing on the image of the Burning Bush and Mary, he writes: Mary’s creaturely nature “burning and not being burned up in the divine flame of the Holy and Life-giving Trinity.”72 Mary’s ability to be touched by the “divine flame” of the Holy Spirit is not simply the result of the grace of her ancestors and her temple experience but also her virginity. Bulgakov links the Marian title “Burning Bush” to her title the “Ever-Virgin.” Relating virginity to the ability of Mary to be overshadowed and burn without being consumed by divine life may seem inordinate as well as somewhat forced. However, Bulgakov deemed the two intimately related, and Mary’s virginal state bespeaks to her unique ability to become the Mother of God. Bulgakov states unabashedly, “though a female being, Virgin and Mother, the Ever-Virgin is not a woman in the sense of sex . . . [she is] free from sex, higher than sex, ever virginal.”73 Virginity regarding bodily integrity and purity is intimately related to holiness. This is not an original thought. Not only is it a tradition in Orthodoxy but Pavel Florensky also writes about virginity. According to Bulgakov, virginity carries spiritual (i.e., purity/sanctity of conscience) as well as corporeal (i.e., lack of sex) overtones. Thus for Bulgakov, Mary’s virginity allows Mary to become the Burning Bush of the New Testament. Nevertheless, Bulgakov argues that there are two kinds of virginity: historical and spiritual virginity. This is not to suggest that they are not related, as both senses of virginity are intimately connected, and Mary’s perpetual virginity (her historical virginity before, during, and after the Incarnation) is a result of her spiritual virginity, which is evident in her lack of sexuality. Historical virginity refers to the lack of sexual intercourse. This is the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. It is an article of faith for all ancient Christian communities who trace their origin to Jesus Christ (e.g., the Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, and the Catholic Church to name a few). However, Bulgakov pushed this idea further, arguing that Mary’s virginity was required for the Incarnation. Bulgakov picks up an idea in certain patristics (e.g., John Chrysostom)74 that Mary’s virginity was necessary and indicative of God’s original intention for conception, virginal conception. Bulgakov’s logic for stressing the virginal conception as a normal, fully human mode of conception is straightforward: if Christ is the perfect man and the new Adam, then his conception should not be exceptional but rather fully and perfectly human. The result is that the virginal conception of Christ reveals something about God’s original intention for sex and human sexuality. In his article “The Incarnation and the Virgin Birth,” Bulgakov provided one of his most succinct elucidations of this teaching. This article was written in response to the Church of England’s doctrinal report that allowed for dissent on the doctrine of the virginal conception of Christ. To the chagrin of his Anglican friends, Bulgakov violently rejected the conclusion of this

128

Bulgakov’s Mariology

report75 and argued that speculation about the Incarnation without the virgin birth is absurd and overly rationalistic, as Scripture and the patristic tradition clearly evidences this dogma. Whether or not historical scholarship can verify it should be of little concern to Christians, for historical scholarship should have no bearing on a central tenet of faith. After all, biblical-historical scholarship can only attest to the probability that an event in the Bible is historical. The difficulty the virgin birth poses for historians is that it is a miraculous event that has no analogy outside the faith tradition; moreover, no other person in the Bible experiences virgin birth/conception. It is not surprising that biblical scholars find the virgin birth to be improbable or at least without any historical basis outside the faith community of the author of the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. Bulgakov proposes that we should look at the scriptural narrative, as opposed to beyond it. Jesus’s conception and birth were not happenstance or hyperbole, but rather the authentic human mode of conception which does not have any analogy in or outside the Bible because the original sin has marred human sexuality. The original sin affects sexual intercourse and conception as we know it. Although his argument will not convince anyone who has not accepted the virginal conception of Christ as dogma, especially given the fact that the virgin birth is not mentioned in the earliest New Testament sources explicitly (e.g., the Gospel of Mark and the letters of St. Paul), Bulgakov’s theology is consistent on this point. His thought on the virgin birth fits his interpretation of salvation history as a synergy between God and humankind, as the virgin birth is not an expectation imposed by God on Mary, but rather a realization of her truly human potential. Bulgakov appropriates Augustinian anthropology, and like Augustine, he argues that carnal intercourse is the means by which the sin of Adam is passed on to future generations, and thus the dogma of Christ’s sinlessness precludes the normal form of the transmission of life. However, Bulgakov extends this logic further than Augustine. Because Christ is fully and perfectly human, his conception, which is without sin, must be in accord with human conception without sin. He concludes that the virgin conception of Christ reveals the original mode of human conception. Here we see again Bulgakov’s insistence on not only God’s respect for human freedom but how Mary intimately participates in creation’s final preparation for the Incarnation inasmuch as she allows for a perfectly human conception or the actualization of prelapsarian conception. Only the Virgin Mary who had not only refrained from sexual activity but achieved spiritual virginity had the ability to actualize this truly human mode of conception. Mary’s role as a virgin has a recapitulative function. Bulgakov wrote, “[s]he is not only Virgin and the Mother of Christ, but still more: EVER-VIRGIN (Aei-parthenos). That means that in her is restored the original virginity and purity of mankind which is proper to it in its creation.”76 As a virgin who spent nearly a decade in prayer, serving the Lord at the holy of holies, Mary overcame even the possibility for the lack of chastity. She was totally committed to doing the will of God and not the

Bulgakov’s Mariology

129

“empire of sexuality” and temptations of sex.77 Thus spiritual virginity is chasteness, wholeness combined with wisdom,78 or the “perfect orientation towards God in the absence of any multicentricity, destroying its integrity, throwing it into disorder,”79 but also the overcoming of lust and passion involved with sex.80 In this way, Mary had control over her body that is evident in her perpetual, historical virginity or her lack of “sexuality” (e.g., lack of lust and desire to have intercourse with Joseph). Therefore, Mary perfectly manifests virginity in both the historical and spiritual senses.81 For these reasons Bulgakov lauds her as the “Incarnation of Virginity”82 or “bearer of perfect Virginity,”83 and spiritual virginity is a prerequisite for virginal conception because virginal conception involves a harmonious action between the body and spirit. Bulgakov does not describe at length what virginal conception is beyond the insight that it is an extra-physical relation, whereby conception could occur without physical sex, or least intercourse as we know it.84 Although this may seem offensive to many contemporary readers since Bulgakov favors virginity over marriage and devalues normal sexual relations in that he regards conjugal intercourse as a result of original sin, the importance of this teaching for Bulgakov is that it further testifies to God’s respect for the integrity of creation inasmuch as God fulfills a human potential. Virginal conception of Christ is not an exception or an arbitrary action, but rather helps to establish Christ’s perfect humanity since His incarnation actualizes the mode of human conception before the original sin. Thus, sex as we know it is fallen in as much as it is an expression of the dialectic between spirit and body, where flesh struggles against the spirit and vice versa (Gal 5:17).85 For Bulgakov, this juxtaposition between the body and the spirit is nowhere more than self-evident in our experience of lust.86 Before the original sin, for Adam, however, this was not the case, and at least in theory, a means of procreation that involved both spirit and body was possible for him. Sex for prelapsarian Adam would have expressed this original harmony between body and spirit. Therefore, parenthood and historical virginity were not originally a contradiction, for Adam and Eve were intended by God to be the first virginal spouses and parents.87 Thus, Mary recapitulates edenic virgin-motherhood. Although Bulgakov undervalues sex and the erotic aspect of conjugal love, Bulgakov’s speculations provide a new insight on the Church’s dogmatic profession of Mary as the Ever-Virgin and Theotokos. Only the Ever-Virgin could be the Theotokos: to be Mother of God requires total selfgiving love to God. As the Ever-Virgin, Mary could alone become the temple of the living God. Bulgakov’s thought on the virginal mode of conception is not to deny the miraculous aspect of the conception of Christ that occurred through the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Mary;88 however, the fact that it is conception by means of a spiritual encounter as opposed to carnal conjugal union illustrates for Bulgakov an original mode of procreation that is in accordance with his stress on the full humanity of Christ.89

130

Bulgakov’s Mariology

His teaching on virginal conception evidences how thorough-going his criticisms of exceptional privileges are. Christ reveals what it means to be fully human, even in terms of conception. All that I have said is not intended to deemphasize the importance of the Holy Spirit in the seedless conception of Christ in Bulgakov’s thought, for the context of this speculation is the divine-human synergy. Bulgakov does not suggest that the Holy Spirit had intercourse with Mary, only that in the miracle of the Incarnation, the Holy Spirit does not work against normal human relations but rather fulfills it. Through the Holy Spirit’s synergy with sophianic grace, Mary regains the spiritual integrity of seedless conception; however, this does not guarantee the Incarnation. It simply made possible the original avenue of the human mode of procreation that provided a means for Christ to incarnate without contracting the original sin. Virginal conception involved the complete gift of self that entails a unity of hypostatic spirits without selfish desire and normal intercourse. The strength of Bulgakov’s argument is that he demonstrates that virginal conception is consistent with the humanity of Christ that has come under scrutiny from several prominent theologians. The most notable theologian to question this consistency was Wolfhart Pannenberg, who denies the virgin birth on account of its inconsistency with the humanity of Jesus Christ;90 he argues that if Christ is fully human, then Christ should be conceived by natural human intercourse, not a miraculous conception. Bulgakov would agree with Pannenberg’s reasoning, but argue that his conclusion does not follow; Christ’s virginal conception is not miraculous in as much as it is how intercourse occurred before the original sin. The Annunciation of the cross91 The icon of the Burning Bush is also an icon of the Annunciation since the Holy Spirit dwells and defies Mary’s human nature;92 after her fiat, Mary receives the glorious presence of not only the Holy Spirit but also the Second Person of the Trinity, yet their presence does not consume Mary. Moreover, her deification is unique and preliminary because it is deification without salvation. Bulgakov insists that until Christ’s life and ministry have been completed, salvation is not possible. Mary, therefore, had a unique experience as a person that was without sin and sin’s concupiscent effects; however, her salvation was not yet established; nevertheless, Mary was without the temptation to sin and fully committed to God’s will and her Son Jesus, her salvation was all but assured. Evident in her “pondering” in the Lucan narrative (Luke 2:9), Mary did not fully understand the mission of her Son and her vocation in her Son’s mission. She had to mature in her relationship with God. Here we find a unique insight that Bulgakov offers on Mary’s motherhood: at the Annunciation, Mary becomes the Mother of God only insofar as she is the historical Mother of the hypostatic union, but her role as Mother of God, or the one who is fully incorporated into the life

Bulgakov’s Mariology

131

and mission of her Son in the Holy Spirit that is intimately connected to her salvation begins at the Annunication.93 Consistent with Bulgakov’s stress on human freedom, only after her heroic efforts of faith that culminate in her participation in the Paschal Mystery and the Pentecost does Mary receive salvation. At Pentecost, we may properly speak of Mary as the pneumatophoric hypostasis. Even then, she does not fully participate in the Holy Spirit’s mission until her resurrection and glorification at the end of her life. The upshot is that the Annunciation has a prefatory significance.94 Just as Mary’s temple experience prepares her for the Annunciation, her life experiences from the Annunciation to the Crucifixion of Christ prepare Mary for her vocation as the Mother of God. Bulgakov makes this point explicit in his article, “The Cross of the Mother of God” [Krest Bogomateri] (1942) that the Annunciation is the beginning of Mary’s Christian discipleship. Mary is no exception to Christ’s teaching that discipleship entails “take up [one’s] cross” (Matt 16:24). Mary’s faith journey post-Incarnation or journey of divine motherhood was a cross-bearing journey.95 We need only to recall the life of Mary to find ample evidence of this: immediately after the Annunciation, rather than being greeted with glad tidings from her betrothed, Joseph, she is faced with the threat of divorce (Matt 1:19). Once Joseph believes and embraces Mary as his wife and accepts his role as Jesus’s father, King Herod threatens to kill their newborn son (Matt2:13–25). Even when they find respite from these threats, the prophet Simeon greets Mary with a prophecy that a sword will pierce her heart (Lk 2:35). Bulgakov interprets the silence of the biblical authors on Mary in the life of Jesus to be largely part of her cross-bearing maternal ministry, which humbly places her into the background of the Gospel events. For Bulgakov, Mary’s absence during the passion narratives in all four gospels before the crucifixion as well as the liturgies of Holy Week is indicative of this.96 Mary recedes into the background to carry her cross in humble silence. Although Mary matures in her understanding of her vocation and who her Son is, it is clear to her that all she is and all that she will do will be for the service of her Son, who saves humankind from sin and reveals God the Father to the world. Yet we might wonder what the nature of Mary’s challenge was, as she was without sinfulness and for all intensive purposes deified by the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation. Bulgakov makes a perceptive insight that Mary’s central and greatest challenge was to remain merely Jesus’s Mother,97 and not the Mother of God or the pneumatophoric hypostasis that she was called to be. Given his maximalist Mariology, it is somewhat surprising that Bulgakov would even suggest that Mary had temptations. But his sophiological account of salvation history, which stresses human freedom and synergy, forces him to consider Mary’s temptation because albeit the greatest of all creation, she is also a human being in need of God’s grace just like every disciple of Christ. Essentially, Mary’s temptation was to be even greater than what she was: to be fully adopted into the motherhood of the Holy Spirit and embrace all people as her children, to become the Mother of God

132

Bulgakov’s Mariology

not simply for the purpose of the Incarnation but for all people. Bulgakov returns to Scripture, where he finds evidence of Mary’s temptation not to embrace her vocation fully: Simeon’s prophetic words to Mary (Lk 2:35); Mary’s words to Jesus after she lost but then found Jesus in the Temple (Lk 2:24, 50); and Mary’s attempt, with Jesus’s brothers, to speak with Jesus as he preached (Mt 12:46).98 Bulgakov perceptively notes that in all of these situations, Mary was challenged to grow in her awareness about who she is and therefore challenged to sacrifice her natural motherly sentiments.99 Bulgakov is careful to stress that Mary’s temptation did not involve a temptation to sin (after her experience as a Temple Virgin, this was no longer a possibility) but rather not to grow or overcome her ignorance about what her fiat fully entailed. Since no “impulses and desires of the flesh” were aroused when she was confronted with the difficulty of remaining Jesus’s mother solely, Mary’s experience of temptation was unlike our experience of temptation.100 Her temptation is a result of her infirm nature, which again does not denote any form of attraction to the possibility of sin, but rather allows for the question itself to be posed and internally considered. Unfortunately, Bulgakov is rather reticent about the nature of her temptation; however, his consideration of Christ’s temptation provides a suitable analogy to understand how temptation can occur without sinfulness. For instance, when Satan tempted Christ in the desert, Christ took into serious consideration the possibility of disobedience that Satan proffered. Christ, however, had no attraction to it. He knew immediately that this was not the will of God, but nevertheless, his weak nature allowed him to contemplate it. His kenosis of His power and glory allows for this; otherwise, Jesus’ responses to the Devil would have been almost scripted and less than human. Similarly, for Mary “[t]emptation could only reach her as trial, according to the weakness of human nature, not as ‘seduction which penetrates to the interior of one’s being, poisoning and staining it.’”101 Mary had no desire to sin, as an act against “reason, truth, and right conscience” or “the eternal law.”102 Mary was aware that her Son was the Son of God and would suffer. However, she was ignorant to some extent about God’s plan for her, of which she is made aware later in her life through her Son’s teachings and corrections.103 Jesus reveals Mary’s vocation to divine motherhood, and Jesus’s seemingly harsh words (e.g., Mt 12:46) toward Mary do not reveal Mary’s sin, but rather Mary’s difficulty with overcoming her motherly sentiments. Jesus called Mary to so much more, to lay down her historical motherhood to embrace her eternal motherhood fully, or to fully embrace her participation in the economic mission of the Holy Spirit. This is not to deny that she embraced her motherhood in an incipient manner by accepting her role in the Incarnation, but nevertheless, she needed to mature in faith. Ultimately, Mary’s path toward her complete embrace of divine motherhood occurs at Golgotha as she stands in solidarity with her dying Son. Bulgakov expresses her unique relationship with Christ as a co-crucifixion.

Bulgakov’s Mariology

133

By this, he means that Mary crucifies her historical motherhood for the sake of her Son and his redeeming work. She suffers not simply as a mother who watches her beloved son suffer and die but as the Mother of God, who shares the same life with her Son. For Bulgakov, Jesus’s address to Mary from the cross in the Gospel of John as “Woman” confirms this interpretation, for it demarcates that Mary is now fully “the Mother of the New Adam, [she] is presented here as the New Eve, as the Church, as all God-created or God-accepting humanity.”104 But Mary’s address is complemented by his address to St. John, “Son behold your Mother” (John 19:26). Because Bulgakov interprets St. John, to be the spiritual or mystical leader of the Church, Jesus’s words symbolize a mutual adoption of the historical Church as children of the Mother of God but also the reception of Mary into the life of the Church. Mary is now not merely the woman who bore the Lord, and the disciple of that Lord, but now the Mother of John and all those who, like John, seek to follow Christ. However, the event of the passion and in particular, Mary’s suffering speaks to Mary’s unique role in salvation history. Bulgakov insists that Mary’s suffering is more than simply empathy and heartbreak over Jesus’s death; Mary co-participates in Christ’s passion. Bulgakov, however, refuses to theologize specifically what this means because articulating how Mary co-suffers is an unwarranted speculation at odds with his method. Nevertheless, Bulgakov insinuates that Mary’s sufferings have both a subjective and objective significance. However, given the fact that Mary has matured in her vocation as the pneumatophoric hypostasis, which entails actualization of Adam’s original prerogatives of hypostatization to some extent – after all deification involves the Holy Spirit’s hypostatization of our nature which in turn regenerates us and allows us to hypostatize other human hypostases with whom we are united naturally – that includes co-participation in another hypostasis’s life, based on Bulgakov’s anthropology, it is not unreasonable to assume that Mary had access to Adam’s potential all-humanhood and spiritually shared in Christ’s suffering.105 After all, Bulgakov argues that Christ shares in Mary’s hypostatic life and that “[e]very human person is an all-man.”106 Moreover, based on what has been said about his trinitarian anthropology, if we seriously take into consideration that Mary matured fully into her vocation at the Cross, then we should assume that she would be able to live out her trinitarian likeness to some extent with Christ in their shared humanity. Bulgakov insists that Mary and Christ share the same life and emphasizes that the image of the Incarnation is not Christ alone, but Jesus and Mary. This is significant, because Jesus and Mary reciprocate the divine dyad, the Son and the Holy Spirit analogically. They are the human dyad that also recapitulates the first human dyad, Adam and Eve. Moreover, given Bulgakov’s stress on the new Adam and new Eve dyad,107 Mary’s co-suffering enhances the Pascal mystery since through Mary the feminine experience is incorporated fully into the Pascal sacrifice. While Eve’s lack of faith leads to suffering, Mary’s faith through suffering leads to salvation.

134

Bulgakov’s Mariology

In this way, Mary truly is the New Eve who inverts the fault of old Eve. Even the relationship of freedom to sin is inverted: if Eve was the cause of Adam’s sin and death, then New Adam is the cause of New Eve’s grace and salvation. Thus, Mary’s participation in Christ’s suffering and salvation does not make Christ’s suffering and salvation any less unique but rather enhances our understanding of salvation history: God fully and completely recapitulates the failures and sin of Adam and Eve in the new Adam and Eve. However, the onus of this recapitulation of this redemption is carried by Jesus Christ, the new Adam. Interestingly, in “The Cross of the Mother of God” after speaking about Mary’s co-crucifixion/passion with Christ, but immediately speaks about her co-salvation, which he qualifies this statement with his insistence that we will all take part in salvation through the power of Mary’s nature and freedom.108 Joined with Christ in his suffering, Mary with Christ embraces the cross that is a necessary part of Christian discipleship. In this way, Mary is crucified with her Son on behalf of humanity; however, unlike her Son’s crucifixion, which is saving, Mary actualizes the path of discipleship, the path of divine motherhood.109 She is allowed to spiritually co-suffer with her Son, so as to embrace all suffering and stand in solidarity with all who suffer;110 in this way, she has matured into her role in the history of salvation as the Mother of God. At this point, she is prepared to receive the fullness of the grace of her divine motherhood that will be imparted to her at Pentecost.111 Nevertheless, after the death of her Son, Mary incipiently begins her ministry as the Theotokos: she counsels, blesses, and inspires the Church. The Pentecost For Bulgakov, the Annunciation is intimately connected to the Pentecost not simply because they both involve the Holy Spirit’s descent from heaven but rather that “the Annunciation precedes Pentecost, which in its turn presupposes it.”112 What he means is that Pentecost is the fullest expression of the Annunciation. At the Pentecost, Mary receives the fullness of the grace of deification possible before her death. In terms of Mary’s salvation, the Annunciation has a prefatory quality. Historically the Annunciation precedes the Pentecost, but also presupposes the Pentecost because the Holy Spirit’s mission is not fully actualized in Mary, which is to deify her, and adopt her into the Holy Spirit’s mission until the Pentecost. Precisely, Mary is liberated from the original sin and the incurred punishment, the lack of eternal communion with God.113 The law of death remains, but she is now able to enter full communion with the Blessed Trinity. In reality, the Annunciation and Pentecost are two different modes of one single activity of the Holy Spirit. Bulgakov writes, at the Annunciation, the Holy Spirit provides an “unmediated influence on the body of the Mother of God (analogously to how the Spirit of God hovered over the waters at the beginning of the universe),” at the Pentecost the Holy Spirit gives Mary

Bulgakov’s Mariology

135

a “new spiritual birth.”114 At Pentecost, with the rest of the Apostles, the Mother of God receives the gifts of the Holy Spirit; however, unlike the apostles, Mary’s struggle against sin and concupiscent nature does not exist. Pentecost confirms and further blesses Mary’s heroic effort and faith. If the Annunciation was the beginning of Mary’s divinization, then at Pentecost, Mary receives the fullness of this grace. It endows Mary more fully with the gift of her pneumatophoric hypostasis.115 Pentecost completes the Annunciation. Not only is salvation now possible for Mary because her Son accomplished his ministry and saving work, but Mary now understands fully what it means to be the Mother of God and a disciple of Christ. At the Pentecost, Mary is the Mother of God in a pneumatological sense: she actively begins to aid in the salvation, or spiritual birth, of the members of the Church: to take part in the mission of the Holy Spirit, which Pentecost introduces to the world. She is now more truly a Spirit-bearing hypostasis. The infirmity of her nature remains and results in her death. Death, however, is only an obstacle that prevents Mary from completely living out her relationship with the Christ in the Holy Spirit. Dormition of the Mother of God For today Heaven opens wide as it receives the Mother of Him Who cannot be contained. The Earth, as it yields up the source of life, is robed in blessing and majesty. The Hosts of Angels, present with the fellowship of the Apostles, gaze in greater fear at Her Who bore the cause of life, now that she is translated from life to life.116

As illustrated in this hymn from the liturgy of the Dormition of the Theotokos, the feast of the Dormition primarily celebrates Mary’s resurrection and glorification. Bulgakov, whose Mariology is informed by the liturgy and iconography, demonstrates that Mary’s death is intimately connected with Mary’s glorification, inasmuch as after Mary has overcome death, she will be glorified by the Holy Spirit that “results in the transformation of the creature into a new creation – a Divine-Humanity.”117 Therefore, the significance of Pentecost is that it endows Mary with salvation and full adoption by the Holy Spirit; however, Mary is unable to actualize this relationship completely because she remains subject to the effects of the original sin such as her infirm nature, which is evidenced in her death. Death is a consequence of sin, not natural to humankind. Before the original sin the body and spirit worked in tandem; however, the original sin introduces a barrier to spiritual maturity, death.118 Original sin makes human nature infirm, and thus it can no longer fully control the body.119 Although Christ’s death redeems death so that death can no longer eternally separate us from not only God and but our bodies, death remains.120 With Christ, death loses its punitive connotation and salvation is now possible. Bulgakov adds that the experience of death after Christ’s Resurrection takes on a new

136

Bulgakov’s Mariology

meaning as a pedagogical opportunity to prepare the human spirit for the General Resurrection.121 Heaven is not a stasis but rather entails reclaiming the original relationship between the body and spirit, whereby the body is transfigured, so that spirit penetrates flesh and vice versa. This means that for Mary and humanity, human life is divided into two halves: “psychic-corporeal being” and “spiritual-psychic being.”122 Death is necessary because, in the separation of the spirit from the body, we can experience life as a “spiritual-psychic being.”123 This experience provides us with the knowledge needed to master the body, but also to better understand our life, God, and our role in the economy of salvation.124 Mary was no exception to this rule; death also provides a learning opportunity for her, albeit lasting only three days. Bulgakov approaches death optimistically: death is not something to be feared, but rather an experience necessary for spiritual maturity.125 Furthermore, it does not extinguish human life but rather changes the state of that life. Playing on the imagery of Mary’s Dormition as a falling asleep, Bulgakov argues that death is a dormition of the soul itself. He means this quite literally. The soul within his tripartite understanding of the human person has a specific function relative to the action of the person. According to Bulgakov, the human person is composed of three basic elements: body, soul, and spirit.126 The spirit is what makes humankind unique as it is the center of consciousness and rationality that other living beings do not have.127 The spirit is precisely where the image of God is located. While the body is corporeality, the soul is that which links the body to the spirit. Moreover, the soul is the means through which the body is “quickened,” becoming a spiritual body through the action of the spirit.128 Bulgakov retroactively looks to the General Resurrection as confirmation that the perceived dichotomy between spiritual and corporeal is not accurate, for belief in Resurrection presupposes that the body is inherently open to spirit and it will be transformed at the Resurrection. What the Resurrection reveals is what God intended for bodily existence to be from the moment of creation and not an existence where the “flesh lusts against the spirit” (Gal 5:17). Expressed otherwise, the body is the center of corporeal activity, the spirit is the center of personal consciousness, rationality, and free will, and the soul is the center of energy, but also the receptacle of the Holy Spirit. Death allows the human spirit to acquire the knowledge and ability to master the soul129 that leads to “a new vision of the spiritual world” and prepares the spirit for the General Resurrection.130 Within his tripartite schema, death is not simply the separation of body from spirit but more precisely the neutralization of the soul.131 The feast of the Dormition that speaks of the “falling asleep” of Mary is a trope for death, the soul falls asleep, resulting in the separation of the spirit from the body. In this way, death is a foremost a dormition of the soul. However, the soul is a quasi-corporeal entity insofar as it “lives in the blood”132 and is the life principle of the body133 but it is also a spiritual entity. After death, it

Bulgakov’s Mariology

137

is completely dormant, but it remains with the body and the spirit. This dormancy allows that spirit-soul composite to depart from the body-soul. Bulgakov’s tripartite account of the human being gives insight into the General Resurrection. The Resurrection of the dead will entail more than simply the return of the spirit to the body. It will also entail the re-energization of the soul, the life force, which will reconnect the body to the spirit. This reanimation is not possible without divine assistance; only God is able to overcome the unnatural state of death and deifies the body. For Bulgakov, the human person in body, soul, and spirit was meant for deification, but this can only occur through the Holy Spirit. In the last chapter, we referred to deification as the Holy Spirit’s hypostatization of our hypostasis. At the General Resurrection, this hypostatization will affect all aspects of the hypostasis, including the body, the spirit, and the soul. Mary’s Dormition and Glorification are important for comprehending what the General Resurrection will entail. Like Mary, the bodies of the elect will be glorified and transfigured by the Holy Spirit. In terms of Bulgakov’s tripartite portrayal of the human person, this will involve the quickening or the imparting of energy to the soul by the Holy Spirit. Given the fact that the original sin retards the soul insofar as the spirit has little control over its bodily desires, which is manifested in lustful desires, it is fitting that the Mother of God who was without any personal sin and therefore had complete control of her bodily desires, and shared an intimate union with the Holy Spirit, would be granted resurrection almost immediately after her death. Mary fully receives the grace of deification that involves the energization of her soul by the Holy Spirit. This is, for Bulgakov, not a novel teaching but rather merely explicating the consciousness of Orthodoxy, the belief in Mary’s resurrection and glorification after her death. But her glorification in body, soul, and spirit is the state of Spirit-Bearing that is a synonym for divine motherhood and pneumatophoric hypostasis. Mary is the first human being, a created human hypostasis, to be deified in body and soul, accomplishing God’s original intention for humankind before the fall: transfigured existence.134 Glorified body Returning to Bulgakov’s insights on the tripartite body, once the spirit is prepared to subdue the body, and the soul has been energized/deified, the body is able to meet the demands of that spirit. Afterward, the body is no longer confined to space and time. The upshot of this idea is that Bulgakov provides insight into how the glorified or resurrected body functions for Mary, Christ, and for all people after the General Resurrection. Bulgakov, for a good reason, distances his position on the glorified/resurrection body from what he deemed the “vulgarized doctrine of the Origenists, attributed to Origen,”135 namely the doctrine of ethereal spirits.136 Nevertheless, the glorified body of Mary exists in an ethereal like state, but for Bulgakov this

138

Bulgakov’s Mariology

is not a denial of the corporeality, which is suggested in Origen’s thought, but rather a fulfillment of corporeality. Mary’s glorified or spiritual body is “completely free from matter, though the latter is obedient to it.”137 By the same token, her glorified existence is completely open and penetrated by the Holy Spirit, who is the hypostasis that glorifies creatures. Bulgakov’s unique ideas on glorified bodily existence are based on several sources that include Christ’s transfiguration, Christ’s post-resurrection appearances (Cf. Matt 28:17, Mark 16:14, Luke 24:37),138 and the iconographic tradition that depicts Christ and the saints in their glorified states.139 However, his most important sources is the second letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians. St. Paul wrote: So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. (1 Cor 15:42–44) Bulgakov interprets St. Paul’s words about the “spiritual body” literally and concludes that the body in its physical form, as we experience it, is only a temporary state. The body has the potential to be transformed by spiritual energy; this energy is unleashed or realized through the Holy Spirit at the General Resurrection or what Bulgakov calls the dread judgment.140 It is the Holy Spirit who, after death, reconnects us to matter141 and energizes our souls so that our bodies are transparent to the spirit and vice versa. Recalling the correlation between created and divine Sophia, the post-resurrected body becomes its pure form in divine Sophia.142 It is the body of incorruption that comports to the hypostatic spirit, which occurs through the quickening of the soul.143 Thus the resurrection of the dead is not simply the reanimation of the dead body but the spiritualization of the body.144 The Orthodox Church’s veneration of relics confirmed his speculations. Miraculous relics (i.e., relics associated with healings and other extraordinary phenomenon) indicate that a connection remains between the disincarnated hypostatic spirit-soul in heaven and the body-soul on earth. However, the efficient cause of the miracle is not the saint from whom the relic is taken but rather the Holy Spirit, who deifies the saint. The relic is more or less a conduit through which the Holy Spirit transfers the deified or supernatural grace from the saint (spirit-soul) in heaven to the saint’s earthly relic (soulbody) and thereafter on those who venerate that relic. The soul of the saint is the means through which this grace that heals is transferred from the saint in heaven to the relic on earth. The upshot of this process is that the veneration

Bulgakov’s Mariology

139

of relics honors not only a particular saint but more importantly a saint who is participating in the life and work of the Holy Spirit. Implications for this teaching abound. For instance, how efficacious a relic is depends to some extent on the holiness of the saint and the closeness of that saint to God in heaven. Given Bulgakov’s dynamic understanding of heaven as a state whereby the heavenly human inhabitants continually grow closer to God, there are degrees in maturation, and thus some saints have a more intimate relationship with God than others. This spiritual maturation has a concrete manifestation in the effectiveness of relics, evidenced in miraculous occurrences associated with relics of dead saints. Moreover, miraculous relics have an eschatological significance since they foreshadow the General Resurrection, whereby body, soul, and spirit are reunited. In this case, the holiness or level of maturity in faith retains the connection between the body and the spirit after death. This helps explain why in the lived experience of Orthodoxy there are relics that are more efficacious than others as well as the phenomena of incorruptible saints associated with special saints (e.g., St. Bernadette). This relationship between the saint and God reinvigorates the soul to the extent that it is made manifest in miracles associated with relics or with the delay or cessation of bodily decay.145 If this seems too technical or odd, perhaps it is, but for Bulgakov, these insights have an eschatological function as they point us toward the Resurrection and consummation of history where the soul-body-spirit composite is fully reinvigorated and glorified. Relics are in a sense a foretaste of the Resurrection, in as much as they participate in the grace of the Resurrection in an anticipatory manner, as the bond between soul to body and spirit remains, which means that saints may not be subject to the full effect of the original sin (i.e., infirmity of the body that results in decay at a normal rate and/or non-miraculous occurrences). Bulgakov’s underlying logic is that holiness corresponds to bodily corruption or the delayed decay of dead saints and/or miracles associated with their corpse, body parts, or personal items. It is fitting that the Panagia, the All-Holy Mother of God was be spared bodily corruption after death and that the connection between body, soul, and spirit would have remained strong after death did not dissipate. Bulgakov’s insights demonstrate the consistency of the Dormition/Assumption and Glorification of the Mother of God with Christian anthropology and the cult of relics. The events of the Dormition and Glorification are consistent with Mary’s holiness; God in assuming and glorifying Mary in body-spirit-soul, not allowing bodily corruption, does not work against her nature but fulfills it. What is unnatural is Mary’s death, for death is the result of sin, and humankind is meant for Resurrection and to be glorified in body-spirit-soul. Mary’s assumption and glorification in heaven are not the result of God acting against sinful humanity but rather the fruition of a person who was permeated with the grace of the Holy Spirit through her continual faith and fidelity to her Son, Jesus Christ. As the pneumatophoric hypostasis, a person

140

Bulgakov’s Mariology

who is fully penetrated by the life and grace of Holy Spirit, Mary received the grace of the General Ressurection. Thus, when Mary died, Mary was spared the bifurcation of the spirit-soul-body composite that normally occurs at death and lasts until the General Ressurection. For good reason, Orthodoxy and Catholicism teach that Mary’s body after her death but before her Resurrection was without decay or corruption and that Mary is glorified in heaven.

Part three: the prerogatives of Mary’s glorification Mary, the icon of Sophia Mary’s Assumption and Glorification are not merely a statement of faith about Mary’s exceptional status but also points to her unique relationship with Sophia. Bulgakov is not treading on new territory when he explicated this relationship. As I mentioned, both Florensky and Solov’ev articulated this relationship before Bulgakov. However, their ideas are nourished by the Russian Orthodox liturgical experience.146 Noting that Sophia in the Greek Church is identified as Christ, in the Russian Church, Sophia becomes identified with Mary. This legitimate doctrinal development147 provides Bulgakov with justification and motive to explicate Sophia’s relationship with Mary. The Russian liturgical tradition evident in its celebration of the festival of Sophia on either the Nativity of the Theotokos or the Dormition of Mary and the icon of Sophia in St. Sophia Church in Kiev were fodder for his articulation of what the relationship between Mary and Sophia is. The icon of Sophia in St. Sophia Church in Kiev was important because the link between Mary and Sophia is undeniable. In this icon, Mary holds the Christ child beneath a canopy supported by seven pillars. The inscription on the canopy, which is also a reading employed during Vespers for the Nativity of the Theotokos (September 8), is Wisdom 9:1: “Wisdom has built her house and established seven pillars.” Seven is a motif iterated several times in this icon; for instance, there are seven stairs, seven persons, seven angels, and seven seals. All of these motifs speak to the gifts and aspects of the Church, which indicates the role of the house of wisdom therein. However, the clue that this is a mariological icon is the words from God the Father, who is depicted above the canopy. He says, “I have fixed her feet.” The pronoun “her” most likely refers to the woman depicted, Mary. The fact that the Holy Spirit, depicted as a dove, is immediately above the canopy, leads Bulgakov to conclude that this icon reveals a mariological interpretation of Wisdom 9:1. “Wisdom” is the Holy Spirit and the building of the house is a metaphor for the Incarnation, whereby Mary is the house of Wisdom. She is the creaturely expression of Wisdom on whom divine Wisdom as the Holy Spirit rests and in whom divine Wisdom incarnates. Thus, the icon is not a negation of the ancient association of Christ with Sophia, but rather artistically expresses that Sophia is not subsumed by Christ alone. Given

Bulgakov’s Mariology

141

Bulgakov’s Sophiology that associates Wisdom with the divine and creaturely Nature, this icon demonstrates that Sophia involves all three persons of the Blessed Trinity, but also a creaturely hypostasis, who is at the center of the icon and salvation history, Mary, the Theotokos. The motif of seven, which speaks to the various gifts and aspects of the Church, also speaks to the role of Mary in Church existence. The inscription and image on each of the seven pillars that reference various eschatological events and gifts (e.g., the last column depicts bolts of lightning and the inscription “the fear of God”) are qualities exemplified by Mary.148 The icon of Sophia reveals that Mary is the heart of the Church and an example of what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Mary as creaturely Sophia The beginning of the chapter examined Bulgakov’s interpretation of Mary’s role within the historical and liturgical narrative proffered by the Christian Scriptures and Orthodox Church tradition. There was little mention of Mary’s relationship to Sophia in order to analyze the specifics of his Mariology in detail. This may be surprising given Bulgakov’s notoriety as a Sophiologist as well as his claim that Mary is Sophia. However, for Bulgakov, Mary as creaturely Sophia is largely an eschatological claim. Mary is not properly identified as creaturely Sophia until she is glorified. For this reason, in The Burning Bush, Bulgakov does not provide an extended reflection on Mary’s relationship to Sophia until the end of his book, in his chapter entitled “The Glorification of the Mother of God.” In the Bride of the Lamb, which presents his final major reflection and fleshes out the relationship of Mary and Sophia, he presents her as “the creaturely Sophia” at the Parousia.149 That Mary becomes creaturely Sophia is not simply a statement of faith but also rests on his trinitarian framework for differentiating the persons from nature for the Trinity but also humankind. Bulgakov’s claim about Mary and Sophia rests on the binary of hypostasis and Sophia-ousia. When he says that Mary is the created Sophia or “personal manifestation of Sophia,”150 he means that she is the creaturely human hypostasis that exhausts creaturely Sophia. However, this does not exclude Christ’s relationship to creaturely Sophia, for Christ also exhausts it. The difference is that Christ is a divine hypostasis or as Bulgakov puts it, Christ is a “divinehuman” hypostasis, whereas Mary is strictly a created, human hypostasis. Because Mary is the perfect manifestation of Sophia in the creation, she is a created “soul of the world”: Mary is the personal human center of Sophia/ creation/world. Recall that Bulgakov, like Solov’ev before him, contextualizes salvation history in terms of his Sophiology. Creaturely Sophia is a quasi-personal nature that is made for and existentially desires reunion with divine Sophia. Sophia is a passive nature that is always connected to and hypostatized by a hypostasis; therefore, reunion with divine Sophia is

142

Bulgakov’s Mariology

premised upon a worthy hypostasis that can hypostatize creaturely Sophia and allow for this relationship.151 Although Mary does not reunite divine and creaturely Sophia, she makes this reunion possible. Herein is the manner in which the Mary-Sophia relationship complements Christ-Sophia relationship. Mary-Sophia makes the incarnation and therefore the meeting between creaturely and divine Sophia possible. Bulgakov’s sophionic Mariology allows him to express with more acuity how Mary’s fiat has a cosmological effect: Mary does not simply make a personal decision, but it is a decision on behalf of creation, which she alone was able to make because of her holiness and faith. Since hypostases do not exist without hypostaticity and creaturely Sophia is Mary’s hypostaticity as well as the nature of all created things, Mary’s actions affect every created entity, but specifically the human race. Again, her ability to speak on behalf of all creatures is intimately linked to the holiness of her ancestors, her personal accomplishments, and God’s grace. Holiness in Bulgakov’s thought carries with it the ability to attain the full potential of humankind in its existence as the image of the Trinity. In the Annunciation, Mary actualizes this dormant potential, as she exists to do to will of God. There is no sin or orientation toward non-God in her, and in this way she incipiently actualizes God’s plan for creation. Her fiat, therefore, represents her hypostatization of creaturely Sophia. She accepts God incarnate not only for herself and the nation of Israel but for all creation. In this way, Bulgakov will refer to her as the perfect hypostatic image of Sophia.152 Hypostatization means to consciously will to act in accord with God’s will, and in this manner, every human being hypostatizes creaturely Sophia to some extent,153 insofar as they consciously act in accordance with God’s will.154 Mary’s conscious decision to live in accord with God that is expressed in her fiat and continued throughout her life on earth is distinguished from all other hypostatizations because of its intensity and historical position before the Incarnation.155 However, only after Mary has completed the course of her life on earth and proven her faith is she properly the creaturely Sophia because “there no longer exists a further development or perfection.”156 In Mary, creaturely Sophia is fully and entirely transparent to her hypostasis, which also means due to the relationship between creaturely and divine Sophia that Mary is totally transparent to God. She is completely open to God and loves God with all her entire entity. This will be unpacked in the next section, but suffice it to say that albeit remaining a creaturely hypostasis, salvation is fully accomplished in the Mother of God. Her relationship to Sophia is not juxtaposed but a derivative of her relationship to the Holy Spirit.157 Mary is, in reality, the creaturely expression of the Holy Spirit’s relationship to divine Sophia in Godself: just as the Holy Spirit is the beauty and glory of God, Mary, who is deified by the Holy Spirit, is the beauty and glory of creaturely Sophia. This is an important nuance for Bulgakov because Mary’s relationship to Christ mirrors the Holy Spirit’s relationship to the Son. The recapitulative function of Mary (as New Eve) does not exhaust Mary’s role in salvation history because she is the vessel

Bulgakov’s Mariology

143

through which the Dyad of the Blessed Trinity is manifest in history. She is the pneumatophoric hypostasis, the vessel of the Holy Spirit; as such, she is the culmination of creaturely Sophia. Mary as sophianic beauty Dostoevsky in his The Idiot wrote that “beauty will save the world.” Dostoevsky captures in this famous statement what Bulgakov and many other Russians thought about the value of beauty as a subject of study. Dostoevsky’s genius inspired Bulgakov’s claim that beauty is an experience associated with truth and the power of that truth. Reminiscent of Dostoevsky, Bulgakov frames salvation history in aesthetical terms: he argues that true beauty will save the world from the allure to pseudo-beauty or the “lie of Sodom,”158 a mirage of beauty that under introspection reveals nothing but death. Bulgakov is not simply speaking metaphorically. Rather he is trying to express the experience of salvation, which is the experience of invincible and true beauty, a beauty that “melts” away the hardness of heart.159 This beauty is an all-conquering power that will change dispositions and ultimately save the world. Therefore, beauty for Bulgakov carries an aesthetical and experiential connotation: beauty is a non-rational, joyful experience; it is the experience of the heart that corresponds to the religious experience of truth. The perception of true beauty is associated with the perception of truth itself. There is little doubt that Bulgakov’s certitude of the link between beauty and truth was informed by his religious experiences of the Madonna at Dresden and Sophia at the Caucus Mountains, but also the loss of his son and his near-death experiences.160 At Dresden, for instance, the beautiful image of the Madonna pierced Bulgakov’s heart, loosening many of his “psychological knots” or doubts about God’s existence, leading him to reembrace the Russian Orthodox faith.161 These events bolster his theological efforts, as they further certified by lived experience his theology. Bulgakov does not develop an aesthetical theology but observes that truth has an affective component that is manifested in lived experience of beauty. This experience engenders certitude in the believer. Bulgakov does not succumb to the error of the Russian manualists and Western thinkers who divorce religious experience (mysticism or religiosity) from theology. Bulgakov follows the patristic methodology exemplified in Evagrius of Pontus, who famously stated that a “if you are a theologian, you truly pray.” Theology needs to be rooted in prayer; however, Bulgakov might add that theology must be rooted in the experience of praying. Even though beauty is multiform in its manifestations in religious and secular art, it is objective, insofar as it makes the divine World/logoi transparent to the believer; it is the “sophian idea shining forth in it.”162 Yet, beauty is related to the feminine principle because it entails an “active-passivity” on the part of the artist or recipient. We cannot create beauty but only accept it and participate in it. This is evident in the traditions and theology related

144

Bulgakov’s Mariology

to ecclesial iconography. The goal of icon writing is to express beauty itself, the beauty of the glory of God that shines through the subjects of the icon. However, what is beauty for Bulgakov? Because Bulgakov speaks of beauty in the context of religious experience, he cannot provide a clear and concise definition of beauty. Rather he argues that beauty is a synonym for holiness or “meekness, humility, love, and tenderness.”163 All expressions of true beauty create in its recipient compunction for what is not humble and a desire to live more humble lives. Applied to Mary, Mary is the personification of beauty. For this reason, as I shall illustrate below, Mary has an incredibly important role in the eschaton. Mary is the beauty of Sophia because as the pneumatophoric hypostasis, she is the goal of Sophia and the mission of the Holy Spirit accomplished.164 Because Mary exemplifies holy/feminine living, Bulgakov calls Mary “Beauty-Holiness.”165 However, she is also the certitude of salvation that we will all partake in one day. This statement may seem odd, but for Bulgakov, with the Holy Spirit, Mary makes “invincible and irresistible”166 Christ’s offer of salvation to the believer.167 At the eschaton, the encounter with Mary “pierces hearts.” Much like Bulgakov’s Dresden experience, this encounter causes the person to overcome his or her selfishness and individualism and seek the will of God.168 Bulgakov will ultimately advocate for a form of apokatastasis because – influenced by his encounter with Mary during his Dresden and near-death experience in 1926 – he could not fathom how a person could encounter Mary and reject it. As the “the beauty of your Son and Creator,”169 Mary manifests the salvation of the world. Following Bulgakov’s description of the sexual principles as beauty in truth and vice versa,170 Mary is the beauty of the truth that her Son revealed that awaits humankind in the Parousia. By the same token, Jesus Christ, who is truth in beauty, after saving the believer leads that believer to the beauty of his saving work, and the beauty of the truth of Jesus’s life and mission is made manifest in the most holy Mother of God. Mary as glory and her miraculous intercessions As the beauty of the world, Mary is also the glory of the world.171 Bulgakov notes that glory and beauty are intimately linked inasmuch they are associated with the manifestation of truth.172 Glory is concomitant with the beauty; glory is that which is most beautiful or truly beautiful.173 Mary’s glorification stems from her holiness or more specifically her perfect and continual fiat.174 Her glorification after the Dormition/Assumption had physiological and spiritual effects. The icons of Mary perhaps come closest to depicting Mary’s glorified existence in heaven. However, Bulgakov appropriates the biblical tradition that glory has a quasi-materialistic manifestation (e.g., the appearance of God (Ex 33:20; 24:17) and Christ’s postAscension appearances (Acts 9:3–8)). Glory is a referent to a manifestation associated with God’s life but also the deification of human nature. Just as

Bulgakov’s Mariology

145

Christ’s Ascension into heaven results in a “metaphysical state of the perfect glorification and deification of human substance,”175 Mary’s assumption into heaven results in the glorification of her body. After Christ, Mary experiences the resurrection that, like her Son, results in the transformation of her body into a spiritual body (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:44). In Bulgakovian terms, her human hypostasis is re-energized, transforming her body, soul, spirit composite into what God had intended it to be from the beginning. Mary attains the fullness of creaturely existence. She is more than an “Allman,” as she is a deified saint, a Spirit-bearer. In her perfectly deified state in heaven, Mary is the glory of Sophia or the perfect manifestation of a human creature, Mary lives out completely Adam’s potentiality. Therefore, Bulgakov calls her the “hypostatized humanity of the Godman”176 or Sophia in its “hypostatized form,”177 who hypostatizes “the nature of all human hypostases in general.”178 Analogous to the divine hypostases and their nature, Mary is transparent to all human hypostases through their shared human nature. Herein lies an ontological explanation for her intercessory role: since Mary actualizes creaturely Sophia fully and every person shares the same nature (creaturely Sophia), Mary has the ability to be co-present in body, soul, and spirit to each human hypostasis. Mary’s body and soul are “transubstantiated” and she becomes a “superman.”179 Bulgakov’s insights on the spiritual body of Christ in his post-resurrection appearances (e.g., Matt 28:10, Jn 20:14, Lk 24:13–35) that was able to materialize at will, teach, eat, and changed in appearance provide an analogy for understanding the Marian apparitions, particularly the phenomenon of how Mary manifests herself in the countenance and dress of the local people to whom she appears (e.g., her appearances in Guadalupe, Lourdes, and Fatima, but also the miraculous Marian icons.)180 In all of these instances, Mary manifests her resurrected spiritual/glorified body. As the glory of creaturely Sophia or Sophia’s hypostatized form, Mary is able to manifest herself to humankind as an intercessor and advocate. Properly speaking, miracles associated with Mary are not supernatural phenomena, but rather natural phenomena consistent with the prerogatives afforded to prelapsarian humankind. They are possibilities for glorified bodies that hypostatize Sophia. Sophiology erases any precise demarcation between grace and nature or natural and supernatural. For Bulgakov, everything that occurs in the world is natural to humankind because the world is humankind’s nature/Sophia.181 Mary’s miracles are no exception, and they are not supernatural events, but rather glorified natural events that are expressive of her relationship to creaturely Sophia. More precisely, Mary lives out completely the trinitarian image of humankind or her all-humanity that was possible for Adam and Eve before the Fall. Anything less would be a violation of human nature. Of course, all Mary’s actions are completed with divine assistance and in concert with the Holy Spirit, who dwells in her; however, this assistance fulfills rather than denies humankind’s natural capacities.

146

Bulgakov’s Mariology

Miracles, precisely Marian miracles, are actions of the spirit or more precisely, manifestations of human power that occur in accordance with God’s will.182 They are expressions of the human-divine synergy in as much as they serve the mission of the Holy Spirit, to manifest the salvation of Christ to the world. The miracles of Christ (e.g., his ability to restore life to the dead, heal the sick, and quell storms) involved his humanity and not simply the action of his divinity.183 Analogously, Mary’s miraculous intercessions in the history of the Church are not simply God’s direct intervention in human affairs, but rather God working with Mary as Mary accomplishes a heroic human action.184 As the pneumatophoric hypostasis, Mary’s miraculous interventions fall within the mission of the Holy Spirit, to accomplish the saving work of Christ.185 Applying the title Sophia to Mary is appropriate in as much as Mary attained the goal of creation, which has a material manifestation of bodily glory, or the glory of Sophia.186 This glorification reveals the eschatological significance of Mary. Now humankind can look to Mary to understand what glorified existence entails that it will be granted during the General Resurrection.187 Mary and the angels In heaven, Mary occupies a unique role; she is the queen of angels, she is Jacob’s Ladder. Bulgakov’s angelology provides an important insight into not only Mary’s role in heaven but also her role in the human race and the communion of saints. In Bulgakov’s book on angelology, Jacob’s Ladder he looks to the Russian liturgical text called the “Canon of the Guardian Angel” for inspiration about the constitution of angels and how angelology is correlative to anthropology.188 Bulgakov concludes that whether by direct or indirect mandate from God, angels exist for the service of humanity. Their service is reflected in their metaphysical constitution; angels have their own nature and are purely hypostatic spirits.189 What this means is that angels are distinct, individual subjects: they do not share a world/nature as human beings do, and thus they are not bearers of Sophia in the manner that human beings are. This fits squarely into the biblical and patristic tradition that human beings alone can reveal the fullness of the image and likeness of God.190 Bulgakov’s claim that angels are purely hypostatic existences may seem paradoxical given his account of creation that circumscribes creation within creaturely Sophia, as well as his phenomenological ontology that rejects abstract thinking about nature. This is not ipso facto a contradiction because Bulgakov teaches that angels participate in creaturely Sophia, but they lack their own nature/world/content. To better understand Bulgakov here, it is important to note that for Bulgakov divine prototypes or ideas of Sophia exist in creaturely Sophia in two ways, spiritually in heaven and “on Earth in incarnation.”191 Angels occupy both realms of Sophia, as they participate

Bulgakov’s Mariology

147

in heaven and earth. However, their content is not their own: they do not have their own nature/world. Rather they are identified with or share in the content of a particular prototype in heaven. Whereas human beings over time realize their prototype or vocation God has in store for them, angels are participatory beings. They do not have a prototype of their own but rather participate in the prototype of another. Depending on the content of that prototype, that participation may involve kenosis. This is necessary particularly for guardian angels who participate in the prototype of a human being: they divest themselves of their power and glory in heaven to some extent to share the pain as well as the joys of human existence. Scripture, tradition, lived experience,192 and liturgy reveal that angels are created for ministerial service. Thus, it is fitting that their ontological constitution reflects their service as ministers of God’s will. Bulgakov stresses that they do not have their own world but rather participate in heavenly/invisible and the creaturely/material world of Creaturely Sophia proper to human beings. Here we find a further refinement in Bulgakov’s Sophiology. Although angels are created and therefore included in creaturely Sophia, their hypostatization is limited to their individualized instance of Sophia, “it is a single ray of Divine Sophia in a creaturely-hypostatic consciousness.”193 This is the point: angels are unique individual beings analogous to animals; their hypostasis is limited to only a ray of Sophia and lacks the ability to become an image of the Blessed Trinity, an all-human hypostasis. This is, of course, the reason why God incarnates into a human being and not an angel. For only a human being is made in the image of the “image of God” and can be “gods” to the world (cf. Psalm 82:6). Nevertheless, the angelic ministry is consistent with their constitution, as their main ministry (at least for guardian angels) rests in guiding the creaturely manifestation of this prototype on earth to mature into what God has willed for it. Generally following Ps-Dionysius’ nine-tier choir of angels, Bulgakov argues, with exception to the highest court of angels, every angel contains a prototype of created being, and therefore acts as a guardian for the image of that prototype in non-heavenly existence. Therefore, the majority of angels have an earthly ministry.194 Guardian angels have a special significance since they exclusively serve humanity. Guardian angels are co-human in as much as they not only serve a particular human person but share in the prototype or our “heavenly I.”195 Needless to say, their “Heavenly I” and our “creaturely I” correspond and share the same logoi in divine Sophia, but we are distinct hypostases.196 Guardian angels are so closely united with us that our lives are almost inseparable since they walk with us and guide us. This does not mean that we merge with our guardian angel at the Parousia, so to speak, losing our hypostasis. Rather our redemption will involve our guardian angel, who is our heavenly friend. The mission of our guardian angel is to aid in the maturation of the human hypostasis’s vocation as expressed in its divine logos.197 This mission is the creative task of the angel. Guardian angels in some sense need their

148

Bulgakov’s Mariology

human counterpart to achieve their divine likeness to their prototype or what God has in store for it, for in their service to us that connotes a kenosis for them, they cannot fully embrace what God has intended for them until their mission is accomplished, and therefore the extent to which the human person successfully achieves its vocation will affect its guardian angel.198 Within this context, Mary has a unique position. Citing the liturgical hymn that Mary is “more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim” and the tradition that Christ, not a guardian angel, welcomes Mary into heaven,199 Bulgakov argues that Mary does not have a guardian angel. Herein lies Mary’s distinction from all other human beings, which provides a further insight into Mary’s unique role in salvation history and relationship to creaturely Sophia: Mary’s proto-image is not contained within Sophia as all other human images are contained, but rather her prototype is creaturely Sophia itself. Bulgakov’s thought here provides a metaphysical basis for the Marian titles: Queen of Heaven and Earth, Mother of all believers, and the Protection of Christians.200 After her assumption and glorification in heaven, her personality encompasses creation. This is warranted if you accept Bulgakov’s idea that Mary exhausts human or creaturely holiness as well as the Russian liturgical association with Mary and Sophia. Bulgakov again is attempting to theologize the consciousness of the Church, particularly reading the hymn “more honorable than the cherubim, beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim” within the sophiological tradition. Mary is the image of Sophia herself: Mary’s logos was not an idea in God’s wisdom but rather creaturely Sophia. Mary is what God intended creaturely Sophia to become. This idea is not easy to square with Bulgakov’s insistence that Sophia is hypostaticity, the content of a hypostasis, and therefore seems like a misuse of terms to say that nature is imaged in a hypostasis. However, Bulgakov might reply that creaturely Sophia was meant to be hypostatized by a hypostasis; Mary has a human hypostasis, but it is a unique hypostasis that was capable of hypostatizing creaturely Sophia in its entirely. Christ, of course, did this as well, but his hypostasis was divine or “divine-human.” Mary’s hypostatization is derivative of his hypostatization, for Christ makes possible Mary’s glorification as Sophia. This is consistent with Bulgakov’s gender essentialism, as a feminine image should have a feminine creaturely hypostasis. Although Mary’s relationship is different than the relationship of a protoimage to a creaturely image, God’s creation of Sophia entailed the idea that there would be a creature able to be God-like to creation, allowing for the day when God and humankind will be united in the Son, but also when at the end of time all human beings will enter fully into the glory of God as did Mary. Mary needs a protoimage. Otherwise, she was never an idea of God’s eternal mind. Since angels are associated with the protoimage of creaturely begins, Mary who is above the heavenly angelic courts in honor and glory cannot have an angelic protoimage and therefore a guardian angel. Bulgakov looks to the liturgical consciousness of the Russian Church that associates

Bulgakov’s Mariology

149

Mary with Sophia to deduce that Sophia herself in Her creaturely state is the proto-image of Mary. Mary’s Dormition, Assumption, and Glorification is the beginning of the completion of salvation history. For in Mary creation and humanity attains its goal: divinization. In her, creaturely Sophia attains its fullness as the image of divine Sophia. But this is not the end of salvation history, as humanity must actualize what Christ has completed and actualized in Mary. Nevertheless, as the hypostasis of Sophia, she is the “soul of the world” or the perfect creature. Mary alone has this prerogative, for she is the pneumatophoric hypostasis, intimately united with the Holy Spirit.201 No angel can exist as her angelic correlative because her natural image encompasses all the angels, for she is truly the “Queen of the Universe,” “Mother of All Creation,”202 and “Jacob’s Ladder,” the meeting of heaven and earth. The upshot of this is that although a human hypostasis becomes angel-like in its deification, Mary’s deification is beyond compare, as she unites all creation to God; since there is no angel whose task and scope can encompass all creation, no angel can be her guardian or share in the life that bore the creator of the world. However, Bulgakov argues that on earth Mary had angelic assistance, and the angel Gabriel, who encounters Mary at the Annunciation, functioned as her de facto guardian angel. However, he does not share her life in the same way that a guardian angel shares the life of the human subject that it guards.203 Recalling Jacob’s vision of angels descending and ascending upon a ladder between heaven and earth, Bulgakov calls Mary “Jacob’s Ladder”: Mary, in her glorified state in heaven, is the living link that unites heaven and earth.204 As Compton illustrates, for Bulgakov, the angels rule their “[e]arthly elements through her, the Queen of Angels.”205 As the link between heaven and earth, Mary illustrates the path of salvation for the disciples of Christ; she has a unique role in the resurrected Church that no human hypostasis can approach in holiness. Even though every hypostasis is called to be an all-hypostasis and to share in the salvation of the human race, which occurs with its angel, no other hypostasis will attain the honor of becoming the hypostasis of creaturely Sophia, and thus all other human hypostases’ hypostatization is circumscribed by its hypostatization of creaturely Sophia by its protoimage. After the resurrection and glorification of humanity, neither angel nor saint will be able to approach the Mother of God in her glory and closeness to God. Mary’s lack of an angel does not make her any less human or more divine, but rather attests to her unique role in the economy of salvation. Mary’s identification as Sophia only enhances Christ’s role as the savior of the world, for Mary is the bearer of the Word of God, whose righteousness makes the Incarnation possible, the first recipient of the Gospel message, and the first to fully experience the glory that “God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9). As the Mother of God, she is the Mother of that which her Son redeemed and will glorify, humankind and creation. Mary’s

150

Bulgakov’s Mariology

identification as Sophia serves to enhance God’s superabundant love that invites and includes creaturely hypostases in God’s plan for the salvation of the world. Moreover, angels are assistants for the human race, but humankind is ontologically above the angels, and as a hypostasis of Sophia it not only encompasses creation but it “will judge the angels” (1 Corinthians 6:3). Having a guardian angel is normative but not necessarily a constitutive of being human. Although angels remain connected to us in heaven, in the hierarchy of the created order, humankind is greater than the angels. Evidence of this is the fact that the most exceptional human beings, Christ, the GodMan, and John the Baptist, “the greatest born of women,” did not have a guardian angel.206 As the Second Person of the Trinity, Christ cannot have a guardian angel since God the Son has no prototype; he is the image of the invisible God, the proto-image of Christ is the Son of God. Moreover, like Mary, John the Baptist had a special role in salvation history that precluded a guardian prototype. His lack of a guardian angel stems from his role in the Incarnation. Bulgakov argues that whereas Mary provides Christ with a perfect human nature, John the Baptist unites the human and angelic natures. Only through John the Baptist does the Incarnation extend to all creatures, including the angels.207 Due to the close relationship between angels and humankind, Adam’s fall affected the angels and precluded the full realization of the angelic world for angels.208 At the Parousia, only guardian angels are affected by Christ’s saving work since they would presumably be glorified through their human counterpart. This would mean that the rest of the angelic courts are left out. Below I will explain why John the Baptist is necessary and how he extends the saving work of Christ to all angels. Nevertheless, the synergy involved in salvation history between humankind and God is apparent. Christ saves by/with the human community, including his friend/family (John the Baptist) and mother (Mary).209 Mary and John the Baptist Bulgakov’s speculation about John the Baptist is odd for anyone unfamiliar with Orthodox iconography. It is based on the Deisis (Entreaty) Icon that depicts Christ at the center flanked by St. John the Baptist and Mary on either side.210 Bulgakov’s attributed importance to this icon may seem arbitrary to a non-Orthodox reader, especially given a myriad of icons in the Orthodox tradition. However, Bulgakov was keenly aware of the importance of this icon, not only because of the frequency of its appearance and usage within the iconostasis but also the theological teachings contained therein. Bulgakov is not alone in attributing importance to this icon. Nearly fifty years after Bulgakov’s death, Jaroslav Pelikan in his classic text Mary through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture perceptively noted that the importance of the deisis icon because it is representative of “the entire ‘dispensation [oikonomia]’ of the history of salvation.”211 In

Bulgakov’s Mariology

151

The Friend of the Bridegroom, Bulgakov is explicit that the deisis icon and iconostasis artistically represents glorified humanity, insofar as John and Mary fulfill all the possibilities of holiness regarding “humility and obedience.”212 Slesinski poignantly observed that for Bulgakov their “missions are one with their very being” so that just as Mary is committed to her mission as the Theotokos or the Handmaid of the Lord, John is “wholly and only the Forerunner.”213 John214 and Mary together exhaust the masculine and feminine modes of relation to Christ insofar as they exhibit, respectively, the feminine “self-surrender” and masculine “striving towards” of Christian discipleship.215 John the Baptist complements Mary’s role in salvation history. Bulgakov insists that they stand together as the two greatest creaturely hypostases that exhaust the spiritual life as both male and female.216 Bulgakov’s claims about John may seem to be overstatements, as John did not live to see the accomplishment of Christ’s saving ministry. However, Bulgakov’s position is informed by Orthodox veneration of John and this verse from the Gospel of Luke: “among those born of women there is no one greater than John” (Luke 7:28). What gives John this privileged status among those “born of woman” is a central concern for Bulgakov. Nevertheless, there are two persons born of women who are greater than John: Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ’s mother, Mary. For my purpose, his ideas about John are circumscribed by his Mariology. The result is a typology for Christian discipleship. Together John the Baptist and Mary are paradigms for Christian discipleship, and in terms of the sexual binary that Bulgakov uses to explain human action, Mary and John the Baptist represent femininity and masculinity respectively. John personifies maleness or male discipleship, and he reveals how persons must actively seek out and prepare for an encounter with Jesus Christ. John’s death that occurs after he meets Christ but before Christ begins his ministry and public teaching is fitting, as the feminine passivity is primary in discipleship. Our search and preparation for an encounter with the truth, Jesus Christ, leads to humility, to humbly and femininely accept God’s will for our lives. Mary’s fiat is an archetypical feminine response for Christian discipleship. However, following Mary’s example of Christian discipleship, we are called to continuously and humbly follow and accept the teachings and mission of Jesus Christ. By doing so, we continually make room for the Holy Spirit to work in our lives. As John, in our masculine potential, we desire to meet Christ. Once we do, we recognize that we must decrease while Christ increases (cf. John 3:30). Living out this new knowledge entails a Marian or feminine life, where we will humbly and courageously accept the will of God in our lives, to follow Christ, through the denial of our self-will, so that “If we live, we live for the Lord” (Rom 14:8). Beyond Bulgakov’s unique typology, Bulgakov offers fascinating insight on John’s importance for salvation history. Similar to Mary, John prepares the way for Christ and provides Christ with assistance as his friend.217 Both prepare humanity for Christ through preaching and ministry (John)218 and

152

Bulgakov’s Mariology

fiat (Mary). Regarding grace, both saints are recipients of sophianic grace, albeit Mary’s holiness before the Annunciation is primarily the result of exceptional graces of her ancestors. John’s holiness is primarily the result of the Old Testament cult of the priesthood. After all, he is a member of that cult. John the Baptist completes the Old Testament for Bulgakov, for John imparts upon Christ his Levitical priestly blessing. Bulgakov looks again to iconography and particularly to the icons of John that depict John with wings for inspiration, as well as the association of monks and nuns with angelic livelihoods.219 Therein he finds a good reason to conclude that John’s exceptional holiness transforms him into an earthly angel. Bulgakov is reticent about how this occurs, which his odd given his distaste for privileges. Rather he suggests that as an all-man “a man, by virtue of the ontological fullness of his being, can become an angel.”220 However, this is not necessary for human beings even though Christ foretells that human begins in heaven are angel-like (cf. Mark 12:25). However, Bulgakov takes seriously Scripture’s claim that God will be “all in all.” As I alluded to above, angels must be included in the saving mystery of Jesus Christ for this to occur. However, this poses a problem since angels are not included in creaturely Sophia per se, and Christ assumed humanity, not angelicity. In order for an angel, who is an individual being, to be affected by the Incarnation, it needs for the Incarnation to be revealed to it by another angel who was incorporated into the Body of Christ. At best only guardian angels would be directly affected by the Incarnation through their co-angelic counterparts, their human hypostasis. In other words, Bulgakov makes axiomatic the claim that God will be “all in all” whereby the divine is fully manifested even among the angels221 (1 Cor 15:28). John is the “all-angel, who participates in all the orders of the angelic assemblies.”222 John’s role is exclusive to him. Nevertheless, although John is above the angels as a human-angel and “the greatest born of woman,” he does not attain the glory of Mary. John does not experience the Dormition and Resurrection; he dies, and his body decays, and he will be resurrected for the final judgment. Mary as Church Bulgakov’s Mariology is ecclesiocentric. By this I mean that like Cardinal Ratzinger, Bulgakov argues that Mary is at that center of churchly existence; her personality is transparent to the Church.223 Bulgakov’s Mary is not the Mother of the Church but rather Mother-Church: she is the Church personified and glorified. Mary is central to what the Church is and how the Church should exist. I will limit my reflection of the latter point since much has been said already on this in the context of Mary’s intercession, above, and more will be elaborated on it in the context of Mary’s role in discipleship. In order to grasp the importance of Mary in what Bulgakov deemed churchly existence, it is necessary to examine Bulgakov’s ecclesiology briefly. According to Bulgakov, the Church is primarily an organic entity. It is a

Bulgakov’s Mariology

153

“spiritual organism”224 where a “union of love” occurs between God and humankind but also between members of the Church.225 The Church is truly the body of Christ; it is a living entity.226 Bulgakov’s concern is the nature of the Church as it exists in the world.227 This is evident in his insistence that the Church is primarily a sacrament, the visible sign of an invisible reality.228 Specifically, the Orthodox Church229 is the visible sign of Godhumanhood in the process of realization on earth. (Note that Bulgakov recognizes the legitimacy of non-Orthodox Churches; however, he argues that the Church is present in them to a lesser extent.) As a sacrament, the Church extends beyond the perceptible, historical manifestation of Orthodoxy. The historical Church that begins at Pentecost is important because it is the concrete and fullest manifestation of the Church before the Parousia, but the Church preceded the Pentecost event. Moreover, the Church is an organic entity, an all-encompassing reality that includes the saints, but permeates creation that can be perceived only by inner experience. It is mysterious and ineffable.230 Sophiologically speaking, at its core, the Church in the world is creaturely Sophia, or “Sophia in the process of becoming.”231 Therefore, it encompasses the economy of salvation inasmuch as it preexists its historical foundation during the first century of the common era. Bulgakov, in fact, separates salvation history into four ecclesial epochs: the Edenic Church, Old Testament Church, New Testament Church, and the Church in the age to come. However, the Church is not delimited to God’s relationship with humanity, but rather the “Church is Sophia in both of her aspects, divine and creaturely, in their interrelationship, which is expressed in their union.”232 By this he means that Godhumanhood is a churchly existence: the Church is fundamentally the relationship of God to humankind and vice versa. The Church as the body of Christ encompasses the divine and creaturely Sophia just as Christ’s theandric body encompasses the divine and human natures.233 In creation, the Church is the “theandric reality of the divine Sophia in the creaturely” or the meeting place of the divine and creaturely Sophias, where the divinization of humankind in the presence of God has begun.234 Churchly existence then entails the extension of this perceptible divine-human life to all creation through the auspices of humankind. In this way, the Church becomes the means for humanity to be incorporated into the Body of Christ, but also for humanity to mature in that which God has intended it to be. Ecclesiology in Bulgakov’s thought is a layer within his sophiological anthropology. The Church is not simply a place to meet God but actively engage in churchly or more precisely to become truly human, which is to creatively, actively engage creation and all its constituents in baptism. Christian baptism liberates humankind from sin, so as to aid in the manifestation of the Church triumphant in the Church militant235 or the revelation of divine Sophia in creaturely Sophia. Within this context, Mary has a major role since the “church is represented by Mary, in as much as in her person are united all the properties of the Church, in a personal incarnation that is sublime and ultimate.”236 She

154

Bulgakov’s Mariology

exhausts churchly existence in all four epochs as the New Eve, Daughter of Zion, Theotokos, and Queen of Heaven. Mary corrects Eve’s error; she is totally committed to doing God’s will before the Incarnation. This allows her to make perfect fiat, actualizing her vocation to be the Theotokos. At the same time, she is the eschatological sign and realization of churchly existence. She pervades the Church in its historical possibilities and provides a foretaste of what is to come for the rest of its members. Therefore, she is the “the personal center of the Church.”237 In as much as she is creaturely Sophia personified, she is the Church personified. As the glorified creaturely member of the Church, Bulgakov claims that Mary is the personal head of the Church.238 This is an odd statement that seemingly conflicts with Christian teaching that Christ is the head of the Church. Bulgakov’s ideas here should be interpreted within the context of the divine Dyad. The Church is not simply the Body of Christ, but also the temple of the Holy Spirit, for to live in the Church is to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit’s grace.239 Thus, the Holy Spirit’s role in the economy of salvation shares Christ’s headship,240 and by analogy, as the Holy Spirit’s hypostatic dwelling place, Mary shares in the Holy Spirit’s headship. Particularly, Bulgakov insists that as the pneumatophoric hypostasis, she participates in the Holy Spirit’s “pan-pneumatism,” this is the saving work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. In other words, as Barbra Newman explains, Mary is the head of the Church in a feminine manner (as accomplishing) that complements Christ’s male headship (as revealed).241 As the feminine head of the Church, Mary penetrates the life of the Church to such a degree that “nothing passes without her participation, prayer, and blessing,”242 but again this is entirely consistent with the Holy Spirit’s mission to manifest the salvation of Christ. Recalling our discussion about Mary’s beauty, Bulgakov argues that “Mother and Ever-Virgin irresistibly penetrates into every human heart by virtue of a holy humanity transparent to the manifestation of the Holy Spirit.”243 Therefore within this pneumatological context, Bulgakov defines the Church as “those who are saved in her [Mary] thanks to him [Christ].”244 Because she is intimately involved in the salvation of the human race, Bulgakov calls her “the soul of the Church/world,” the “soul of souls,” and “heart of hearts.” Speaking metaphorically, Bulgakov attempts to express Mary’s close proximity to each human spirit. In this manner, she is “the heart of the Church, its center and personal embodiment.”245 Her headship, therefore, entails her honorific role and preeminent activity in the salvation of others. However, her headship does not detract from Christ but rather enhances our understanding of the divine-human synergy at work in salvation history. While Christ stands above but transcends the Church as God-Man, the Second Person of the Trinity, Mary stands firmly within the Church as the greatest representative of the communion of saints in the Church triumphant. As the Church personified, Mary is the Bride of Christ (Rev 21:9).246 Bulgakov conflates the patristic, typological interpretation of the Bridal imagery proffered in Song of Songs247 and the Book of Revelation that interprets the

Bulgakov’s Mariology

155

Bride to be the Church, with more recent mariological interpretations that this Bride is Mary. For Bulgakov, the Bride is the Church that is personified in Mary. Mary is what the Church on earth is called to be, a saint united with humanity, divinized by God, and living out the mission of the Holy Spirit.248 Nevertheless, as the Bride of Christ, Mary, as illustrated by the Book of Revelation, calls upon Christ with the Holy Spirit to save the world. Therefore, it is fitting that Bulgakov concludes his final book of his great trilogy, The Bride of the Lamb, with this mariological interpretation of Revelation 22:17, “[t]he Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come!’ Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.”249 Mary “the bride” works toward the consummation of the Church in the world, and once her work is complete, she will, with the Holy Spirit, call upon her Son to come again to judge and redeem humanity.250 Mary and the ecumenical movement Bulgakov’s ecclesiocentric Mariology had pragmatic effects that are evident in Mary’s important role in what he deemed to be Church activity.251 Because Mary is the heart of the Church, she is at the center of all churchly activity, including the ecumenical movement.252 Bulgakov argued that the ecumenical movement in the 1920s and 1930s was misguided insofar as it wasted its energy and time on what united the Christian traditions as opposed to what divided them.253 Bulgakov was not adversarial to the ecumenical movement; rather he desired reunion between the Christian traditions ardently but recognized that reunion could not occur until Protestants came to terms with the Theotokos in the life of the Orthodox Church. Bulgakov argued that Mariology was the central, though hidden, nerve of the whole movement towards reconciliation among the divided confessions. The way in which the whole Protestant world suddenly ceased to venerate the Virgin Mary was the most mysterious and real spiritual event of the age of the Reformation. This lack of feeling continues up to the present time, and one of the most important preliminary conditions of the success of reconciliation is to overcome it.254 To the chagrin of his Protestant audience, he made this public at the first Faith and Order Commission meeting at Lausanne, in his paper on Church ministry. Rather than focusing on areas of consensus between the Orthodox Church and the Protestant Churches, he addresses the role of the Mother of God in the Church. He argues that reunion will only be achieved under Mary’s cloak,255 for she is the mystical “Unifier.” Not surprisingly, his claims offended many Protestant delegates in attendance.256 A relationship with Mary is not only necessary for ascertaining the most central truths of

156

Bulgakov’s Mariology

Orthodoxy but also the Orthodox ethos. But also, following the ecumenical council of Ephesus (431), correct belief about Christ is contingent upon correct belief about Mary, particularly that she is “Theotokos.” Therefore, the Protestant tradition’s apathy for Mary results in not only misunderstanding of Christ, but also a misunderstanding of all the other Christian teachings related to the Incarnation, such as ecclesiology, Christian anthropology, and salvation history. Mariology as a method Undoubtedly, Bulgakov’s insistence on the need for Mary in the ecumenical movement reflects his piety and devotion to the Mother of God. Moreover, his sophiological interpretation of Orthodoxy places Mary at the center of churchly activity and salvation history.257 His insistence on the need to soberly and honestly address Mariology reveals an important insight and observation about the nature of Mariology within theology. Mariology is unique in that it has a methodological function within dogmatic theology, for Mariology vouchsafes what Bulgakov calls the “human side of the incarnation” or the role of the human race within the economy of salvation. This is evident in Bulgakov’s insistence that Mary is Sophia, the greatest expression of human freedom and creativity.258 His stress on Mary’s freedom and creativity poignantly reveal that salvation is a synergy between God and humankind. Regarding Christology, Mariology is a failsafe against turning theology into philosophy that would lead to an abstract interpretation of the Incarnation, whereby the hypostatic union has no real implication for discipleship beyond abstract dogma. God does not simply appropriate an abstract human nature, but Mary’s human nature, and in that way, Mary firmly roots Christ’s humanity within the human race. Mariology provides a corrective function for Christology against non-Chalcedonian theology.259 How we view Mary is the litmus test to determine if our Christology is orthodox. It is not surprising that Protestant traditions overemphasize the divinity of Christ at the cost of Christ’s humanity.260 After all, within the Protestant tradition, with exception to the first generation of reformers, Mary has been either ignored or circumscribed to the birthing of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem. Ignoring Mary will affect other aspects of theology. This is implicit in Bulgakov’s thought. Mary is intimately connected to his anthropology and the economy of salvation, and therefore if Bulgakov is correct, the lack of Mariology should affect Protestant anthropology and the economy of salvation. Bulgakov’s common criticism of Protestantism is its mechanical understanding of salvation history261 and individualism.262 Simply stated, Mary provides a valuable insight into how God works with human beings for other human beings to accomplish God’s will for human beings. Because the mainline Protestant traditions have dropped Mary from discussion outside of the Nativity of Christ, they tend to underemphasize human freedom and works, losing sight of the fact that despite the original

Bulgakov’s Mariology

157

sin, humankind is made in the image of God, and that God always works with and never against God’s creation, but also forgetting that human begins are intimately connected as members of one race, which Jesus Christ assumed. The implication is that if Protestants embraced and venerated the Mary as the Theotokos, they would have not only a complete appreciation of Christ’s humanity but also salvation history. Bulgakov’s criticisms of Protestantism are broad generalizations that suffer from the deficiency of any generalization; it lacks substantiation and reinforces caricatures that tend to demean a group of people. Perhaps this is a reason why his Protestant contemporaries ignored his plea. However, recent studies by ecumenists from the Protestant tradition such as Nancy Duff, Robert Jenson, and Tim Perry have arrived at strikingly similar conclusions to Bulgakov.263 For instance, Tim Perry, an evangelical theologian, argues that if Mary is not the Theotokos, then Christians are not saved.264 Duff laments that evangelicals have lost the antidocetistic function of Mary. In particular, evangelicals have lost the Christological interpretation of the biblical verse that “Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary.” What results is that the virgin birth becomes a litmus test for orthodoxy; however, it “has no real content at all.”265 Moreover, Perry continues that superficial attention to Mary “inevitably leaves other central Christian doctrines underdeveloped.”266 Though Perry does not clarify what these implications are, his acute observations more clearly express Bulgakov’s insights. Church teachings are intimately connected. Undervaluing one aspect, especially in the area of Christ’s humanity, will affect other teachings; thus the ignorance of Mariology influences anthropology, ecclesiology, and Christology negatively.267 Like Bulgakov, the underlying issue for Perry is the connection between Mariology and Christology. Proper consideration of Mary’s humanity helps to guarantee a proper consideration of Christ’s humanity. Perry recognizes within the evangelical tradition there is a “thinly veiled Appolinarianism” whereby God the Son assumes not humanity but a “dispensable body for a period of time, intervening not to restore creation, but to rescue believers from it.”268 Perry advances that the recovery of Mary by evangelicals will help avoid this heresy and present evangelicals with a more robust appreciation of who Jesus Christ is, for failing to appreciate the Incarnation, particularly that God became truly human in mind, body, and soul have significant implications for the system as a whole.269 Mariology and Christ’s humanity On the importance of Mariology for Christology, Bulgakov writes: Protestantism does not understand that Mariology must necessarily be included in Christology as an inseparable part of it, for Christ, as the Son of Man, is the Son of Mary. Mary is His hypostatic humanity, the ‘second’ nature that He assumed in the Incarnation.270

158

Bulgakov’s Mariology

Bulgakov emphasizes that Christ is not God acting “through” humanity, but God acting “in” humanity, whereby without losing God’s divinity, God is inseparably connected to every human person through Mary. God experiences the world as a human being in solidarity with other human beings; Mary allows Christ to immerse Himself into the human experience. Mary is this permanent link between God the Son and humanity, who guarantees the true, yet sinless humanity of Christ. Mariology, in effect, provides Christology with the anthropology necessary for understanding how, why, and with whom God incarnates. It guarantees that the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon are properly considered. Bulgakov writes that those who fail to understand the importance of Mary, limiting her solely an instrument in Jesus’s birth, have a “maimed Christology.”271 Not only does Mariology connect Christ to the human family and guarantee his true humanity, but it also prevents overly mechanical interpretations of salvation history.272 The Protestant tradition’s overemphasis on the sovereignty of God and denial that humankind retains the image of God after the original sin273 results in a juridical understanding of the Incarnation whereby “the Incarnation becomes something external, kenotic, a voluntary self-humiliation by the assumption of human nature as a price necessary for the purchase of justification before God.”274 In this account, God primarily rescues us from our fallen nature rather than restores human nature to its inherent blessedness. The result is that the Incarnation is not an internal necessity but an arbitrary event enacted by God to correct our fault, and thus it loses any real meaning for the human race other than that God will no longer damn us to hell without the possibility of salvation. However, this vision of salvation history is diametrically opposed to Bulgakov’s dialogical interpretation of the biblical narrative, which is expressed in his Mariology.275 Mary demonstrates the dynamic role humankind has in salvation history. A proper Mariology forces us to consider that history of Israel that culminates in her holiness. God does not arbitrarily save us, but rather through/with humanity God prepares the world for the Incarnation. Mariology, therefore, demonstrates that nominalism has no place in Christian theology, for the Incarnation involves humankind, as the Incarnation is contingent upon the preparedness and reception of humankind. Salvation involves the human race, and the Church, which is “the sphere of sanctification,”276 is the place in which we join the Mother of God by participating in the salvation of one another. We need to venerate Mary! Thus far, I have outlined Bulgakov’s ideas on the need for Mariology in theology. However, Bulgakov does not simply state that Protestants need to recognize this role, but also that they need to venerate the Mother of God. At the second Faith and Order Commission meeting he stated:

Bulgakov’s Mariology

159

The way in which the whole Protestant world suddenly ceased to venerate the Virgin Mary was the most mysterious and real spiritual event of the age of the Reformation. This lack of feeling- continues up to the present time, and one of the most important preliminary conditions of the success of reconciliation is to overcome it.277 (emphasis added) Recall that Bulgakov’s theology is replete with aesthetics; for example, he uses art/iconography as a source for theology but also his theology is imbued with personal experience.278 The experience of Orthodoxy, which for Bulgakov expresses the fullest historical representation of the Church triumphant on earth, involves the experience of love for the Mother of God. He writes “[l]ove and veneration for the Virgin is the soul of Orthodox piety”279 and “[i]n adoring the humanity of Christ, we venerate his Mother.”280 Bulgakov does not put forward a clear theological argument for the veneration of Mary, but rather only observations about Orthodoxy. For instance, he states that the failure to venerate Mary, which for him is the means by which we ask her to pray for us, will result in a significant spiritual loss.281 Without Mary as well as the saints, we “are destined to remain spiritually without a family, without a race, without a home, without fathers and brothers in Christ. They traverse the way of salvation all alone, without looking for examples and without knowing communion with others.”282 Lack of the veneration of Mary and the saints is a selfimposed spiritual exile from the Church triumphant and the saints, “the cloud of witnesses” (Heb 12:1); one unnecessarily carries the cross of Christian discipleship alone without the examples and widely available spiritual aid. Given Bulgakov’s understanding of humanity as a multi-hypostatic essence made after the image of Love itself, the Blessed Trinity, the veneration of Mary and the saints is none other than our incipient participation in our true relationship to one another, to love and aid in the betterment of one another, so as to grow closer to God. This also illustrates why the Orthodox Church is the fullest representation of the Church triumphant on earth, for it fully communicates with and benefits from those closest to God, the saints and the Theotokos.283 But this is a far cry from arguing that the veneration of Mary and the saints are necessary for salvation. Bulgakov would likely agree with the contemporary Catholic position that the veneration of saints is strongly suggested but not required.284 In point of practice, Bulgakov during ecumenical prayer services out of respect for non-Orthodox Christians he does not mention the Mother of God. In his article, “By Jacob’s Well,” he writes: [w]e cannot pray together to the Blessed Virgin and to the saints with Protestants . . . for the sake of communion in prayer [Orthodoxy] is forced to adapt itself by, as it were, minimizing itself, thereby losing some of its fullness.285

160

Bulgakov’s Mariology

Although these prayers are still effective, they are not as effective as they could be since Mary and the saints are left out. Nevertheless, for Bulgakov, whether or not we ask Mary, Mary will aid in our salvation. Like any good mother who loves and aids her children, even if those children ignore their mother, Mary’s divine motherhood and love for all her children is not contingent upon accepting her love. Yet Bulgakov laments not explicitly mentioning this relationship in prayer with Protestants because he desires to express what he experiences, namely the love and kindness of the most Holy Mother of God.286 Bulgakov’s exasperation on this issue reflects his belief that veneration of Mary is a natural necessity. By natural necessity, he means that the love of Christ leads us to love the woman who bore him, the woman whom Jesus loved, Mary, and love for Mary leads to Jesus Christ. If we truly understand who Christ is and what his mission was, then we are left with no alternative but to love the woman he loves. This is not an apodictic proof for the veneration of Mary, but rather another example of his personalism and observations that love for Christ leads to love of his Mother and that love for Mary in turn leads to love for her Son. The dread judgment Perhaps one of the most unique aspects of Bulgakov’s thought is his eschatology, and more specifically the important role Mary has therein. In The Burning Bush, Bulgakov provides his first major statement on the role of Mary in the final or dread judgment. He returns to this topic at the end of his career with his publication of The Bride of the Lamb, which provides his longest, final sustained reflection on Christian eschatology within his sophiological corpus. In both texts, he stresses that Mary is not judged but rather intercedes on behalf of humankind regarding her pleading before her Son for the human race. However, what this intercession entails, and how it involves her relationship with the Holy Spirit, are detailed in The Bride of the Lamb. At the final judgment, Mary, unlike humanity, is not judged; for Bulgakov, her assumption and glorification of body and spirit-soul are evidence that she has already undergone this judgment and has been found to be righteous.287 In this way, Mary stands above creation; she is the living embodiment of the realization of the eschaton. She has already experienced the personal and dread judgment and the fullness of salvation of which all creation will partake at the eschaton. This conclusion is not theologoumena, but rather explicating the consciousness of the Church. The liturgical hymn “more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious without comparison than the seraphim” places Mary above the highest angelic courts; Bulgakov writes that this indicates that Mary is the “highest and saintliest of all creatures,” as she is glorified in body and soul-spirit, which is what will occur to righteous humankind after the dread judgment.288 Thus, Mary’s inclusion in the final judgment would be superfluous since she is not only totally and completely saved, but outside Godself, there is nothing in heaven or earth that can compare to the glory and honor of the Theotokos.

Bulgakov’s Mariology

161

Mary, however, is not aloof to the dread judgment. Particularly, in The Bride of the Lamb, Bulgakov looks to the icons of the dread Judgment that depict the Mary sitting at the right hand of God to provide evidence that Mary is not only spared experiencing the dread judgment, but she plays an important role interceding on behalf of humankind during that judgment.289 After establishing what he deems the Church’s consciousness, Bulgakov typologically interprets the bridal imagery used in the Book of Revelation (e.g., Rev. 19:7–9; 21:9–10; 22:17) as a reference to Mary, who is “the Bride,” and the Holy Spirit, who is “the Spirit.” Thus “And the Spirit and the bride, say Come” becomes a biblical basis for Mary’s role in the dread judgment. What results is that the dread judgment is a synergistic event that involves God and humankind, for not only is Christ in his glorified humanity and divinity the judge, but Mary as the pneumatophoric hypostasis and in conjunction with the Holy Spirit “is itself the judgment of the world.”290 Just as in the economy of salvation the Holy Spirit is the hypostasis that activates Christ’s saving work, preparing humankind and creation for the eschaton, Holy Spirit in the eschaton activates the judgment of Christ. This activation involves the Holy Spirit’s adopted human hypostasis, Mary the Theotokos. Elucidating how the dread judgment involves both hypostases and Mary, Bulgakov, in his typical antinomic fashion, describes the final judgment as simultaneously a judgment of love and a judgment of justice. The judgment of justice refers to the traditional understanding of the final judgment where Christ descends from heaven to judge the living and the dead. As the hypostasis of truth, Christ renders a just judgment.291 Christ makes the sinner aware of its failure to respond to God’s offer of love: “In every human being, his own unreality or nakedness, his failure to wear a wedding garment at the wedding feast, is clearly, distinguished from Christ’s reality.”292 Bulgakov is referencing chapter 22 of the Gospel of Matthew, where the man who failed to wear the wedding garment is cast out of the wedding feast. The wedding garment is a metaphor for Bulgakov for our logos in the Logos. Specifically, the sinner stands before his logos in the Logos and sees for him/herself the distance between what God intended for that person and the reality that person created. The experience of this judgment is the judgment of love, involving the Holy Spirit. Following Isaac of Nineveh,293 this judgment of justice includes the experience of hell understood as the torment of God’s love that burns away what keeps the soul from communion with God. The Holy Spirit sets ablaze the heart of the believer, who in turn cannot fail to love Christ but then suffers on behalf of this love, as the Holy Spirit makes the believer experience his/her separation from Christ, its proto-image, on account of sin, causing unbearable suffering.294 With Christ, the soul sees its failure, but now the soul is purged of its failure. The suffering of hell in this account is less punitive than preparatory, insofar as it prepares the soul for the eternal beatitude that God has in store for a soul. Mary, who is totally and utterly penetrated by the Holy Spirit, participates in the judgment of love.295 Bulgakov speaks about her role in the judgment itself but also “her works of love after the judgment.”296 About the

162

Bulgakov’s Mariology

latter, Bulgakov limits his speculation because it is “best for us to observe in silence.”297 Attentive to what he deemed overly abstract and out of sync with the life of the Church, Bulgakov will not venture beyond what he can find warrant for in Scripture and tradition. Nevertheless, he argues that Mary functions as the visible image or personal revelation of the Holy Spirit, which provokes repentance in the sinner.298 What Bulgakov is getting at is the intimacy involved in the dread judgment. It is the great finale of the act of human existence, which will be ushered in by a poor and lowly handmaid of the Lord. The dread judgment in a sense is based on our failure to be truly human. Mary reveals to humankind what it means to be human, as well as the bountiful gifts God has in store for those who love Him. She is the Holy Spirit perceptible in creation, or Love Itself manifested in a creature. As the “the living conscience in human beings,”299 Mary penetrates the human heart and consciousness, and awakens it to its selfishness and egoism and then to repentance.300 In contradistinction to Christ’s judgment of justice, Mary’s participation in the judgment of love arouses in the soul compunction for its failure to respond to God’s love, in accord with the Holy Spirit’s judgment of love that leads the soul to become aware of its perversion and selfishness and desires repentance. Thus, judgment and purification of a soul involve God and humankind. The soul grievously suffers for this lack of righteousness and inability to provide a fiat that can encompass its earthly existence as did Mary. However, Bulgakov stresses that “Mary bestows mercy, like a Mother.”301 Her bestowal of mercy is not in contradistinction to her role in the judgment of love, but rather illustrates how God involves Mary in our salvation. She is not the savior. Rather the penitential soul after having been made aware of its failure to love God joins Mary in boldly praying for “mercy at Christ’s dread Tribunal,” “for the fetters of love binding humankind are not abolished.”302 Through and with Mary, the soul desires salvation, to be with God. For Bulgakov, Mary’s presence at the dread judgment does not diminish Christ’s work in any way but rather enhances it. Although the New Eve is not the central analogy in his thought, it is a critical analogy and provides a valuable insight into Mary’s role in salvation history. The implication of Mary’s role in the dread judgment is that the Christ-Mary relationship inverts the relationship of Adam and Eve to sin. Just as Eve actualizes damnation for the human race, Mary actualizes salvation for the human race. Eve, who was active in our sin, is trumped by Mary, who is active in our salvation. Whereas Adam follows Eve into sin, thus leading the human race to a state of alienation from God, Mary follows Christ, leading the human race into salvation. Mary and the damned Louth made the pertinent assessment relevant to this study that it was precisely Bulgakov’s reflections on the Mother of God that led him to his vision of apokatastasis.303 Bulgakov in his section in The Bride of the Lamb

Bulgakov’s Mariology

163

on the mercy of Mary at the dread judgment, states that humankind will “ultimately be justified.”304 Bulgakov’s love for Mary undoubtedly played an important role in his acceptance of apocatastasis. Mary’s role in heaven is paradoxical: she experiences the bliss of deification but also sorrows over the sins of her children and the damned.305 Bulgakov had no doubt that Mary prays for those in hell because she is connected to them as their mother. If her prayers were not answered, not only are her prayers ineffective to some extent, but the Mother of God must sorrow over her lost children for eternity.306 Since the redeemed in heaven do not forget the damned, she would eternally co-suffer with the damned.307 If hell remains for eternity, then Mary’s torment remains eternal. Given Bulgakov’s optimism, this is not possible. Universalism is the only reasonable conclusion he can accept. Bulgakov argues that since “everyone is responsible for all,” as long as humankind shares one human nature, our salvation is not complete until the human race is saved. No one can be left behind. Heaven does not exist in its fullness so long as hell exists.308 Moreover, given the fact that creation is creaturely Sophia, when God is all in all and creation is divinized, there is simply no place for hell and evil, which has no being and is the deprivation of good. Nevertheless, due to his fidelity to the Orthodox tradition and stress on freedom, he wants to preserve the doctrine of hell as well as avoid the forms of apokatastasis that have been declared heretical. This leads him to postulate that hell is a state of being outside of time and space, and it is best expressed as an internal state as opposed to an eternal place.309 Hell is precisely the experience of divine Love as purging us from sin.310 Bulgakov’s interpretation of hell is similar to the Catholic Church’s teaching on purgatory insofar as hell is a purgative, temporary state that will not exist after the eschaton. Bulgakov, however, universalizes purgatory.311 According to Bulgakov, all sin must be expiated to experience divine beatitude. Bulgakov’s predilection for existential language and rejection of legalism as applied to God, suggests that this expiation of sin has less to do with making recompense for offenses against God as opposed to the internal condition of the soul. Sin mars us so that we are incapable or less capable of choosing God, the good. Then, hell is a self-inflicted punishment; it is brought about by God for our offense and provoked by Mary, who existentially demonstrates what God had in store for us; but the fires of hell are precisely the experience of our sorrow and pain for not accepting God’s Love. Our incorporation into the glorified Church is predicated upon our receptivity to God’s love that is only possible, insofar as, our reason and will are oriented completely to God. Mary accomplishes this perfectly, and thus she experiences the fullness of heaven without the torment of hell. Her perfect and continuous, lifelong fiat are indicative of her lack of any attachment to sin that manifests itself in her perfect holiness and experience of heaven without hell. In a Marian fashion, corresponding to our fiat to the offer of eternal life, we experience heaven and hell in degrees. For Bulgakov, this is canonized not only in the teaching of Jesus, who speaks of heaven as

164

Bulgakov’s Mariology

the Father’s house with many rooms (John 14:2), but also in the delineation that the Church makes between minor and major saints.312 The holiness or lack of hell of the saint corresponds to whether the saint is a minor or major saint. By the same token, we experience hell in as much as their remains attachment to sin that needs expiation. However, this will be expiated at the end of time. The Parousia The dread judgment and the Parousia are one event.313 In this event the entire Trinity is fully revealed in the world: the power of Pentecost and Incarnation are exhausted since Christ’s work is accomplished. The Parousia reveals the glory of God in the world, the union of creaturely with divine Sophia entails the Parousia of the Mother of God. Mary is after all the “creaturely glory of the world, the glory of Christian humanity.”314 With Christ, Mary stands as the complete revelation of the Incarnation and Godhumanhood. Nevertheless, the Parousia entails the return of Christ in his power and glory but also the end of the Holy Spirit’s kenosis.315 The Holy Spirit is revealed to humankind, which involves the revelation of the Mother of God. However, Jeffery A. Vogel’s research complicates this claim. He argues that while in Sophia: The Wisdom of God (1935) Bulgakov maintains that the Holy Spirit will be revealed, however, in The Bride of the Lamb (1939) he drops this argument.316 Vogel fails to see the mariological context of this statement and offers a cursory account of a complicated issue.317 Placing these statements within their broader mariological context reveals that Bulgakov’s statements to which Vogel refers are Bulgakov’s attempt to differentiate the Holy Spirit’s function from the Son. In The Bride of the Lamb, Bulgakov sought to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit manifests the Son’s work, not self-revelation.318 His position in The Bride of the Lamb is consistent with his first mariological work, The Burning Bush (1926), where he vehemently rejects the notion of a Third Testament, which was popular in the Russian Religious Renaissance, whereby the Holy Spirit would reveal itself. In The Burning Bush he is much more succinct and clearly states that Mary will be the personal revelation of the Holy Spirit at the Parousia.319 Thus, his rejection of the personal revelation of the Holy Spirit in 1939 was not new but rather consistent with his position he held in 1926.320 However, his position on Mary’s participation in the revelation of the Holy Spirit is nuanced: Bulgakov argues that the Holy Spirit does not reveal itself per se. In perfectly adopting the Mother of God, in its life and mission, Mary becomes the historical manifestation of the Holy Spirit that will be revealed when Mary descends from heaven at the Parousia. Mary’s manifestation of the Holy Spirit is a consequence of the Holy Spirit’s function, a secondary cause. It is not necessary that the Holy Spirit manifest itself. Unfortunately, Bulgakov’s thought on this can become turgid, and he is easily misinterpreted since he does not concisely express this idea. Nevertheless,

Bulgakov’s Mariology

165

in his most popular work, Sophia: The Wisdom of God and The Bride of the Lamb, Bulgakov reiterates his position in The Burning Bush. In his chapter on “The Veneration of Our Lady” in Sophia: The Wisdom of God, Bulgakov asserts clearly that Mary is the personal revelation of the Holy Spirit: “But there is a human person to whom it is given to manifest the holy Ghost himself, and that is the most holy virgin, Mary, the heart of the Church.”321 Likewise in the Bride of the Lamb, he writes: “ [Mary] is the Spirit-Bearer, the transparent human image of the revelation of the Holy Spirit” and again she is the “human hypostatic image of the Holy Spirit.”322 Therefore, Bulgakov consistently maintains throughout his theological career that the Holy Spirit is revealed in Mary. She is not simply humanity glorified, but the hypostatic image of the glorifier, the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, the question remains: “What is Mary’s contribution to the eschaton and Parousia?” Besides revealing her intimate union with the Holy Spirit, she also “brings the full power of the Incarnation into the eschaton.”323 To understand Bulgakov on this point, we must look back to his dyadic understanding of salvation history and anthropology. Mary compliments Christ with her glorified feminine human hypostasis. This is fitting that not only the divine Dyad is revealed in their glory when their work is complete at the Parousia, but that since this work is at its core a divine-human work, the completion of salvation history is ushered in by the New Adam and New Eve, the creaturely images of the divine Dyad, the God-Man, Jesus Christ, and his Most Holy Mother, Theotokos, the pneumatophore. Basing himself on Rev 22:20, Bulgakov suggests that the Parousia of Mary will precede the Parousia of Christ.324 She is the New Eve or recapitulated Eve. Herein the failure of Eve and Adam is inverted, for just as Eve ushers in the new age of damnation, Mary ushers in the new age of salvation. Christ completes the age of salvation with his Parousia and judgment. Together New Eve and New Adam reveal the fullness of the Godhumanhood:325 the synergy of God and humankind in both its human and divine aspects326 and the reality that humanity was made for eternal beatitude with God that is revealed in the glory and beauty of the Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ.327 Here the eternal foundation of creation and humanity are shown forth in the male and female representatives of the human race, Mary and Christ Jesus.

Part four: Mary and discipleship Mary’s new path as divine motherhood Mary’s relationship with the Holy Spirit and role in the eschaton reveals a mariological interpretation of discipleship that is alluded to by Bulgakov but never thoroughly developed. Without restating what has already been said, it is important to note that Mary is not simply a model disciple, but

166

Bulgakov’s Mariology

rather the first disciple to receive the Holy Spirit and to live out the mission of the Holy Spirit.328 As the pneumatophoric hypostasis, she embodies divine motherhood, the hypostatic function of the Holy Spirit, not only in giving birth to Christ but also in aiding of the actualization of salvation for the believer. It is in this latter sense that Christians are called to be divine mothers: to give birth to Christ through our prayers, thoughts, and deeds, which entails our deification by the Holy Spirit. The key source to unlocking the link between Mary, the Holy Spirit, and discipleship or the spiritual life is St. Seraphim of Sarov. St. Seraphim was not only a favorite Orthodox mystic that Bulgakov admired, whom Bulgakov cites frequently in his theological corpus, but Bulgakov appropriates St. Seraphim’s definition of the spiritual life as “the acquisition of the Holy Spirit” and St. Seraphim’s mystical vision wherein Mary identified him as a member of her kind. This definition and vision were an impetus for the intersection between pneumatology, Mariology, and discipleship in Bulgakov’s thought. Bulgakov writes: The world is the womb, giving birth to the Mother of God, all humanity is in her becoming a divine motherhood in the making.”329 And again “[t]he spirit will give a new sensation, a living knowledge, a vital adoption of this Word, a word-bearing, a universal cosmic divine motherhood . . . This is the assimilation of Christ by the creature, a living sensation of the universal Christophoricity of creation, and in this sense, Christ-bearing or divine motherhood is the operation of the Holy Spirit, a world Pentecost.330 “The assimilation of Christ by the creature” is a synonym for deification. It is a state created by the Holy Spirit only when the human hypostasis is prepared to receive the Spirit’s presence in its life. At that point, the man or woman becomes “pneumatophoric” not only in their “natural being but in their personal being and hypostatic consciousness.”331 This is the beginning of the deification of a particular man or woman and by analogy the direct participation of that man or woman in the maternal mission of the Holy Spirit. As Sophia Compton poetically expressed, Mary is relevant to Christian discipleship because “[s]he belongs to the age of glory; her mysteries are a beckoning toward that which is yet to come for the rest of us.”332 Crum likewise writes “he [Bulgakov] extols Our Lady as the spiritual type, which every pious person desires to emulate.”333 In this way, Bulgakov’s Mariology, to use the term proffered by the ecumenical statement Mary Grace and Hope by ARCIC, is an “anticipated eschatology.”334 Mary foreshadows what the redeemed community will participate in. As Newman correctly observes, for Bulgakov, Mary “prefigures the full transformation which shall be accomplished at the Parousia, when the entire Church receives the glory that was first conferred on the Theotokos.”335 What this will entail is revealed to us in the Mother of God. Therefore, all that I have said about the Mother of God about her glorification, miracles, and intercession apply to humankind.

Bulgakov’s Mariology

167

As saints, before the dread judgment, we will participate in the salvation of others. However, Church tradition reveals in Mary what our glorified existence entails after the Resurrection of the dead, but also provides an example of heroic Christian living.336 Mary gives Christians an example to follow: Christians must embrace their feminine nature and also give themselves totally to the will of God the Father; however, this can only occur if the Christian, like Mary, sacrifices his or her personal I so that the Holy Spirit may enter into him or her. He or she must give a complete and utter fiat. The Christian must metaphorically will to give birth to God,337 which is only possible through the Holy Spirit.338 In this sense, we share the Holy Spirit’s motherhood as “a state of begottenness in the process of accomplishment.”339 Each hypostasis is called bear the Spirit, in as much as each hypostasis is made by God for divinization or to be adopted by the Holy Spirit.340 To do so is to receive the general gifts of the Holy Spirit. These gifts include the spirit of humility and repentance or asceticism, the spirit of love, and prophecy.341 These gifts are evidently expressed in key moments in Mary life: her achievement of the heights of asceticism at the Temple, her fiat at the Annunciation, and her prophetic witness throughout her life that culminates with her co-suffering with Christ at the cross. Mary’s life involves her heroic effort to follow her Son’s example through her Spirit-bearing of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, Mary’s expression of the faith albeit archetypical is not meant to silence our expression or experience of the Christian faith. By our baptism and confirmation, Christians have received these same gifts of the Holy Spirit and are called to live them out.342 The gift of prophecy has a particular importance for Bulgakov’s theology of discipleship. As evidenced by his publication “Spirit of Prophecy” in 1939, prophecy has a central role in the spiritual life.343 Actualizing our feminine potential under the guidance of the Holy Spirit leads us to make a creative response to the injustices that surround us.344 This critical engagement with the world stems from the “spirit-bearing quality of Christian humanity after Pentecost.”345 All disciples are called to this form of a prophetic witness by virtue of their baptism.346 However, it is difficult, and just as Mary’s prophetic witness required the denial of her motherly sentiments,347 so we are also called to do the same, to deny even our own role in our family, if need be, for the sake of the Gospel.348 The Holy Spirit requires our complete fiat without reservation, and thus creative activity presupposes humility.349 The Holy Spirit imparts life to us as an insatiable, erotic love for God that will be satisfied with nothing less than Godself. As prophets, after renouncing our self-will for the will of the Father, we must engage the problems in our society with prophetic zeal. Creativity in this sense entails doing the will of God at the expense of one’s own will or “taking creative responsibility in history, in the light of his knowledge of the end of history.”350 The Spirit imparts various gifts, which are in accordance with our different vocations. Each person has a specific vocation he/she is called to do.351 Mary’s unique,

168

Bulgakov’s Mariology

personal vocation involved her role as Christ’s Mother and the first disciple. With Christ, Mary audaciously took upon herself the cross and was cocrucified with him.352 She is the first disciple of Christ to follow Christ up to the point of death. After his death, Mary was not granted her will to die with her Son, but rather she was given a new mission to guide the Church, as she awaited her Dormition in patience.353 Analogously, we are called to give birth to Christ in whatever situation we may find ourselves in, so that we may aid others along the path of discipleship. Like Mary, Christians must act prophetically in their given context, which will undoubtedly entail co-crucifixion with Christ. The descent of the Holy Spirit means that all human activity is capable of Spirit-bearing or divine maternity. It can give birth to Christ and foster encounters with Christ. For this reason, as Bulgakov illustrates, the Church charges particular ministries associated with the cultural and historical activity to canonized saints.354 The saints are those men and women who gave birth to Christ in their context and now stand in solidarity with people today who find themselves in a similar situation. Therefore, human activity can be sanctified, but it is up to the individual Spirit-bearer to accomplish this task. Furthermore, Bulgakov argues that pneumatophoric men and women have a lower analog in the sages and poets of secular society.355 Henceforth, the Holy Spirit is not limited to the historical Orthodox Church, but rather inspires humans. Sages, poets, and artists form part of the mosaic of the spirit-bearing community.356 In this way, Bulgakov’s insights on Mary, the Holy Spirit, and discipleship reveal an important insight on St. Paul’s enigmatic words, “we complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” (Col 1:24). What is lacking in Christ’s afflictions is our participation in the saving event of the Paschal Mystery. Only as a Spirit-bearing community, who has welcomed the Holy Spirit and been adopted into the life and mission of the Holy Spirit, will the afflictions of Christ be complete; together with the Mother of God, we will bring to fruition, by the Holy Spirit, the realization of Christ’s salvation of the human race. Jesus Christ as Spirit-bearer Vladimir Lossky in his Spor o Sofi criticizes Bulgakov for his inordinate stress on Mary as Spirit-bearer that neglects the extraordinary fact that in the Orthodox tradition Christ is the Spirit-bearer. It seems, therefore, an exaggeration if not perplexing to emphasize Mary’s Spirit-bearing, at the cost of Christ’s Spirit-bearing ministry. Interestingly, Bulgakov frequently calls Christ the Spirit-bearer357 and refers to his ministry as Spirit-bearing. At face value, Christ’s relationship with the Holy Spirit shares much in common with Mary’s relationship with the Holy Spirit. Like the Annunciation, at Christ’s baptism, Christ is adopted by the Holy Spirit and actualizes the will of the Father through the Holy

Bulgakov’s Mariology

169

Spirit. Christ’s adoption by the Holy Spirit is Christ’s Pentecost that allows for the Holy Spirit to be present in his human nature and thus guide Christ in His awareness of His mission and divine identity. However, a significant difference remains; Christ is not a disciple like Mary, but the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The divine Dyad in the immanent Trinity is transferred to the economic Trinity, and thus Christ is a Spirit-bearer, but not in the same sense as the saints and Mary, whose Spirit-bearing actualizes the work of Christ. The Holy Spirit in relationship to Christ in salvation history has a subsidiary role since the Holy Spirit makes Christ aware of His divine mission and identity so as to accomplish the Son’s mission. Recalling Bulgakov’s theology of the divine Dyad, the Holy Spirit has a passive role between the Incarnation and Pentecost events, as it has not yet hypostatically descended into the world, and thus before the Pentecost, the Holy Spirit supports the mission and work of Jesus Christ. Its mission in relation to Christ supports and sustains the mission of the Second person of the Trinity. After the Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit becomes the primary and active hypostasis in the world, the Holy Spirit ennobles believers to work in accord with its mission, to live out Christ’s saving work. Mary, albeit exceptional, and all of the saints who live post-Pentecost actualize the mission of the Holy Spirit. However, his thought here brings up two additional questions: first, if the rest of humanity is spiritually bisexual, how then is Christ fully human if he lacks this spiritually bisexual nature? Second, since Christ is the hypostasis of the Son and the hypostasis of the Son is the archetype of masculinity,358 how do we explain his feminine actions (e.g., his humility, passivity in relation to the Father)? Regarding the first question, for Bulgakov, the fullness of humanity is expressed not in an individual but rather in the community of human persons. Recall the discussion in Chapter 4 about the trinitarian image of humankind. Christ and Mary together exhaust the masculine and feminine activity in humankind;359 together they exemplify and exhaust human life. Bulgakov’s insistence on Mary as necessary for Christ to be fully human refers not simply to her role in giving him her humanity but her complementary relationship to him as the archetypal feminine. Thus he insists, [The] Incarnation of Christ is realized not in one Person but in two: in Christ and in the Virgin Mary . . . Christ has His humanity in a double manner: in Himself, included in His proper hypostasis, and outside of Himself, hypostatized in the female hypostasis of Mary (for His humanity is not only flesh in the physical sense; it is also a living humanity in the totality of its spiritual-psychical-corporeal being).360 Mary hypostatizes Christ’s human nature as the archetypical female. In so doing, she incorporates the experience of women and more importantly the feminine path of discipleship into Christ’s humanity. Bulgakov anticipates the criticism that his position on the “dual-unity of the human hypostasis

170

Bulgakov’s Mariology

in Christ and Mary” directly contradicts Galatians 3:28, “[t]here is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”361 He argues this verse refers not to human hypostases but human nature. All are one in Christ because Christ hypostatizes human nature as male and female; given the dual-unity of “Jesus-Mary,” Jesus hypostatized the female nature indirectly through/with the Mother of God.362 Nevertheless, as mentioned, since humankind includes a masculine potential, Christ shares a direct connection to each human person. Thus, if we grant Bulgakov’s vision of humanity, Christ’s pure masculinity does not deny his humanity, but rather illustrates his unique place in salvation history with the Mother of God as the fullness of the image of God in humankind. They exhaust the two modes of masculine and feminine activity. For Bulgakov the proto-image of humankind or the fullest expression of humankind is none other than the Son and the Holy Spirit; Bulgakov is consistent here. Christ and Mary reveal the divine dyadic image of the Father completely to the world. This brings our discussion to the second question. Bulgakov’s stress on Christ’s pure masculinity is consistent with his teaching that the Son is the prototype of masculinity.363 But the issue remains, if Bulgakov defines femininity as active-passivity, which involves humble acceptance of God’s will that leads to prophetic action, should we not also characterize Christ as feminine in some manner as he not only humbly accepts God’s will, doing the Father’s will (Jn 6:38; 4:34) but is also led by the Spirit (Matt 4:1)? One of the difficulties with understanding the feminine principle in relationship to Christ is that Bulgakov uses gender language in relationship to God analogically, and in fact warns his readers not to apply with all rigors the natural divisions of sex to God, as this would be an anthropomorphism.364 For this reason, as I alluded to in the previous chapter, his usage of gender is somewhat flexible and at times inconsistent. Gender is an important narrative in his anthropology, Mariology, Christology, and pneumatology, but it is not the central narrative in his theological system. What he stresses is that Christ is the “perfect male” who exhausts the male principle, while the Holy Spirit is the perfect female in its revelation in Mary and the Church.365 In The Comforter, he was poignantly aware of the misunderstanding that his gender language may create, and for that reason, he proceeded with caution when using the term “active-passivity,” as his goal is to stress that Christian discipleship entails being receptive to the Holy Spirit. Spirit-bearing for Bulgakov primarily is a function of disciples of Jesus Christ, not Jesus Christ himself since Christ’s mission is intimately related to his hypostatic function in the inner life of the Trinity as the second person of the Trinity, which was for Bulgakov the perfect expression of the male principle. Thus, his receptivity is in accordance with his inner life as the Revealing Hypostasis. Jesus’s receptivity was related primarily to his economic mission, which is different from the receptivity of Christian disciples. The problem here is that receptivity has different meanings in relationship to Christ and the Holy Spirt. Receptivity in

Bulgakov’s Mariology

171

relation to Christ relates to doing the will of the Father; actively putting the Father’s will first, for the Holy Spirit receptivity means not simply to do or reveal the Father’s will but rather to achieve/actualize that will. Again, it is the Father’s will that is primary, but much like the difference in the hypostatic processions from the Father, the begetting of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Spirit, there are important nuances. These points, however, should not exonerate Bulgakov from answering this question. To remain consistent, Bulgakov must either deny that Christ has a feminine principle, which would create problems for his anthropology and Christology, since he stresses that human nature includes both principles and therefore Christ is not fully human or argue that Christ has a feminine principle, but this seems to contradict his stress that Christ exhausts the masculine principle. However, there is a way out of this quagmire if we take seriously Bulgakov’s demands to articulate ontology more organically. Gender is a function of the nature that is actualized by the hypostasis. Thus, what makes Christ a fully masculine hypostasis is that he perfectly hypostatizes the masculine nature. This is not to deny the feminine principle in human nature; however, Bulgakov is silent about the role of the feminine in Christ. It seems reasonable that Christ as the divine Hypostasis of the Son, which is the image of the image of masculinity, would hypostatize alone the masculine potential within human nature. Christ’s hypostatization of the masculine principle alone would highlight the role of Mary in salvation history, for it is through her that the feminine principle, which is perfectly hypostatized in her, is incorporated into the redemption of Jesus Christ. Mary and Christ together have a unique experience as the perfect feminine and masculine hypostases respectively. Through them, humanity in its quasibisexual nature and hypostasis are redeemed. However, again Mary acts in the capacity of the archetypical feminine, the Holy Spirit, which enhances and further completes the redemption begun in Jesus Christ in his perfect masculine expression of humanity. To make Bulgakov’s thought here consistent, he must stress the bisexuality of God and emphasize that the Son completely hypostatizes the masculine aspect of God’s bisexual nature, while the Holy Spirit completely hypostatizes the feminine aspect of God’s bisexual nature.366 However, as I mentioned in the previous chapter, Bulgakov is cautious of attributing gender to the Godhead even though he flirts with it. It is clear that he uses engendered language analogically in reference to God. Unfortunately, Bulgakov’s hesitancy to analogically appropriate gender to God keeps him from clarity on the role of the feminine in Christ and the masculine in Mary.

Conclusion Bulgakov provides a nuanced treatment of the traditional Orthodox devotion to Mary. Due in part to his anthropological starting point and stress on sharing in Mary’s Spirit-bearing through the incorporation into Christ

172

Bulgakov’s Mariology

by the Holy Spirit, Mary is placed within the community of believers. In so doing, Bulgakov’s Mary, albeit highly exalted, remains closely connected to the human race. She is neither a co-redeemer nor takes away from Christ’s unique mediation; rather she reveals more fully the Holy Spirit’s hypostasis and function as well as humankind’s role and relationship to God. In so doing, Mary expresses the divine-human synergy from the side of creaturely Sophia. Mary realizes the trinitarian-like existence that humankind is called to live out. She is then truly the New Eve; however, she is more than Eve in as much as she lives out fully what was only a potential for Eve. Nevertheless, the majority of important prerogatives that we apply to Mary are not special privileges, but rather inherent to human nature, which will be actualized at the Resurrection.367 Thus even her miracles and miraculous appearances should not be seen as exceptional in so far as they are non-human actions, but rather seen as fully human actions, which are actions in accordance with God’s will. Although Bulgakov’s vision of Mary is an exalted image, his anthropological and pneumatological emphasis in his Mariology keep Mary connected to the human race. In this way, Bulgakov’s Mariology is anthropologically and eschatologically centered. For Bulgakov, Mary’s participation in salvation history and relationship to the Holy Spirit is preeminent and perfect but not exclusive since as Spiritbearers, all disciples are called to give their personal and prophetic witness as they proclaim the Gospel. The salvation of the human race will not be fully accomplished by the Holy Spirit until the human race participates in it. This participation has begun in Mary but will include humankind, which is evidenced by Bulgakov’s apokatastasis. We are called to be joined with Mary in her adoption by the Holy Spirit, working toward the salvation of humankind. This does not downplay the traditional acclamations of Mary as evinced by the Orthodox tradition and liturgy, as well as Bulgakov’s own acclamation that she is Sophia. There are degrees of holiness or closeness to God, and Mary has attained the level of closeness that no saint can approach. This is evident in the fact that not only was she chosen for the task to be the Theotokos but she lacked a guardian angel, as her prototype is not a specific angel but rather creation itself, for she is the greatest expression of human freedom and synergy. God not only saves humankind but God involves a created human hypostasis in the salvation of the world. As a creature, Mary intercedes on behalf of all creatures; because her protoimage is the Sophia, Mary is not only Mother of all that is included in creaturely Sophia but intimately close to each of the inhabitants of creation. Thus at the final judgment, Mary will intercede on behalf of every human being because she is their Mother, but the example of humility and “Spiritbearing” that all human beings are called to participate in. Bulgakov is an ecumenically minded theologian, who was aware of the caveats of Catholic Mariology, exalting Mary above humanity (e.g., the Immaculate Conception) and Protestantism that traditionally rejects Mariology because it erroneously believed that Mariology detracted from the

Bulgakov’s Mariology

173

unique mediation of Christ.368 He tries to find a middle ground that makes room for Mary’s freedom and accomplishment but also takes nothing away from Christ, the sole Mediator between God and humankind. Nevertheless, this chapter revealed a significant problem with Bulgakov’s stress on sexuality as a mode of activity. This issue does not detract from his overall contribution to the field of Mariology but demonstrates problems with overly essentialist anthropologies.

Notes 1 The Burning Bush was authored in response to this dogma and Catholic Mariology proffered by Matthias Scheeben. We cannot speak authoritatively on Bulgakov’s Mariology until we have examined in detail why he rejected the Immaculate Conception and what he offers in contradistinction to it. 2 See Behr-Sigel, p. 60. Behr-Sigel argues that Mary is “typos of a Christ-bearing (christophoros) humanity because she bears the Spirit (pneumatophoros).” “Spirit-bearer” is also a derivative of pneumatophoros used by various Orthodox writers. 3 Petro B. J. Bilaniuk, In Eastern Christianity, Vol. 2, (Toronto: The Ukraine Free University, 1981), pp. 54–55. Bilaniuk was unaware or ignores Bulgakov’s The Burning Bush. Bilaniuk derived “Pneumatophora” from pneumatophoros and Mary’s exemplary relationship with the Holy Spirit. 4 For a succinct introduction to the relationship of the Holy Spirit to monasticism see Enzo Bianchi, “The Holy Spirit in the Monastic Life,” (Cistercian Studies Quarterly 37.2 (2002): pp. 153–166). Summarizing the relationship between monasticism and the Holy Spirit, Bianchi writes that monastic life “is a Pneumatic life, because it is a gift of God to the Church on pilgrimage toward the kingdom. Only the inspiration of the Holy Spirit makes it possible for a Christian to take up monastic life freely and out of love,” and “what is essential in monastic life is being open to the presence of the Holy Spirit, being a dwelling place for God, and acquiring the Holy Spirit, so as to become a pneumatophor, a bearer of the Spirit.” (Ibid., pp. 153, 159.) In his usage of “Spirit-bearer” Bulgakov conflates this tradition with the more general usage of pneumataphor as an expression of a general call to holiness. 5 Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1995), p. 90. 6 Bulgakov, BB, p. 169, n. 13. 7 Mary’s adoption by the Holy Spirit is not unique in Bulgakov’s account. What happens to Mary is a perfect degree of sanctification that all Christians will experience prior to their deification. Bulgakov writes: “the blessing with grace or divinization of the human by the action of the Holy Spirit can be imagined generally as a type of adoptionism, more or less full penetration of human nature by divine, their living conjunction.” (Ibid., p. 168.) 8 Bulgakov, BL, p. 411. 9 Cf. Graves, p. 40. 10 Bulgakov’s teachings on Mary’s role in salvation history explicate this antiphon from the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: “Most Holy Theotokos Save Us.” 11 Bulgakov, FB, pp. 28–29. 12 See Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 83. 13 Graves, p. 37. 14 Before the Incarnation, Bulgakov insists that God did not encounter humankind hypostatically. (Bulgakov, JL, p. 135.)

174

Bulgakov’s Mariology

15 Louth correctly illustrates that Bulgakov’s criticism of pure human nature anticipated Henri de Lubac’s criticism on this matter by nearly twenty years. (Louth, “Father Sergii Bulgakov on the Mother of God,” p. 153.) 16 Cf. Bulgakov, “Revelation,” pp. 128, 130. 17 Cf. Ibid., pp. 129, 142; Cf. Legisa, p. 9. 18 Bulgakov, BL, p. 31. 19 Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 3, Sec. 4, Location 2645 of 7314. 20 Ibid. 21 Cf. Bulgakov, BL, p. 32. 22 Ibid., p. 31. 23 Nichols, There Is No Rose, p. 63. 24 Ibid. 25 Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 5, Sec. 2, Location 5488–5489. 26 Death results from the weakness of the spirit to overcome the body. (Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Dying before Death” in Sergius Bulgakov: A Bulgakov Anthology, Edited by James Pain and Nicolas Zernov, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), p. 24.) 27 Although Mary suffered the infirmity of sin, Bulgakov argues that “bodily pain and sickness” were removed from her, but not “emotional sufferings.” (Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 5, Sec. 1, Location 4293.) 28 Bulgakov, BB, p. 72. 29 Ibid., p. 158, n. 13. Surprisingly, Scheeben’s Mariology shares remarkable similarities with Bulgakov’s Mariology. Although Scheeben does not argue that Mary is the pneumatophoric hypostasis, he argues that Mary is the “bearer, organ, and representative of the Holy Ghost who proceeds from the Logos.” (Matthias J. Scheeben, Mariology, Vol. 1, Translated by T. L. M. J. Geukers, (London: B. Herder Book Company, 1946), p. 217.) As “the organ of the Holy Spirit” the Holy Spirit “works in her in the same way that Christ’s humanity is the instrument of the Logos.” (Matthias J. Scheeben, Mariology, Vol. 2, Translated by T. L. M. J. Geukers, (London: B. Herder Book Company, 1946), p. 185.) Moreover, Mary is “an image of the person of the Holy Ghost” and “carnal dwelling of the Holy Ghost.” (Scheeben, Mariology, Vol. 1, pp. 179–180.) Scheeben suggests the pneumatological adoptionism described by Bulgakov in his The Burning Bush. Like Bulgakov, Scheeben comes very close to arguing that Mary is an Incarnation of the Holy Spirit. Bulgakov was either unaware or uninterested in Scheeben’s Mariology, for he fails to acknowledge these similarities. 30 Cf. Milbank, p. 60. 31 Bulgakov, BL, p. 350. 32 Neo-scholastic theology was en vogue during Bulgakov’s life. In fact, Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Aeterni Patris (1879) requested that the clergy study Aquinas and follow Aquinas’ example when theologizing. (Leo XIII. Encyclical Letter, Aeterni Patris: On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy, (1879), para. 33.) Aeterni Patris was the Catholic Magisterium’s de facto endorsement of neoscholastic theology. However, the Catholic Church has not officially endorsed the doctrine of pure nature. Interestingly, The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) does not mention pure nature or speak of grace in terms of donum superadditum. It states that the original sin takes away the “original justice” or harmony of humankind within the self, with other people, and the natural world. (CCC, 376.) 33 Henri de Lubac, “The Problem of the Development of Dogma” in Theology in History, Translated by Anna Englund Nash, pp. 248–280, (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1996), p. 263. 34 Cf. Nichols, There Is No Rose, p. 24.

Bulgakov’s Mariology

175

35 Robert Slesinski, “Sergius Bulgakov on the Glorification of the Mother of God,” (Orientalia Christiana Periodica 73 (2007): pp. 97–116), p. 97. 36 Fredrick Jelly, Madonna: Mary in the Catholic Tradition, (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1999), p. 127. 37 Joseph Wilhelm, Thomas B. Scannell, A Manuel of Catholic Theology: Based on Scheeben’s ‘Dogmatik’, (London: Kegan, Paul, Trenck, Tubner and Company, 1909), p. 219. 38 Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus: Defining the Dogma of the Assumption, (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1950), para. 44. 39 Cf. Bulgakov, “Correspondences,” pp. 33–34. 40 Cf. Bulgakov, BL, pp. 30–32. 41 Cf. Bulgakov, BB, p. 42. 42 Bulgakov, FB, p. 161. 43 The angelic habit is a reference to monasticism. (Cf. Bulgakov, FB, p. 161.) 44 Bulgakov, Churchly Joy, p. 15. 45 Catherine Aslanoff, The Incarnate God: The Feasts of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary, Edited by Paul Meyendorff, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995). 46 Cf. Bulgakov, Churchly Joy, p. 15. 47 This is Bulgakov’s neologism, which Smith translates from the original votserkovlenie. (Bulgakov, BB, p. 66.) 48 Bulgakov, Churchly Joy, p. 14. 49 Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles, Ch. 1, Location 315 of 1644. 50 Bulgakov, Churchly Joy, p. 15. God’s presence in the Temple points to a peculiarity of God’s presences: “God is not present everywhere; and when He is present, He is present not by His omnipotence, but by His gracebestowing power, and there are holy, God-chosen places as well as places forsaken by God.” (Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles, Ch. 1, Location 257 of 1641.) 51 Bulgakov, BB, p. 66. 52 Ibid. 53 Bulgakov’s idea that Mary is the Temple of the Holy Spirit is inspired by the kontakion from the feast of The Entry of the Virgin Mary Into the Temple: “[t]he all-pure Temple of the Savior . . . is led today into the house of the Lord, and with her she brings the grace of the divine Spirit,” and Hebrews 9:1–7, the first reading of this feast, read within the context of the feast, alludes to the Theotokos becoming the holy tabernacle of the Lord. 54 Bulgakov, Churchly Joy, p. 15. 55 This typological argument also provides Bulgakov with fodder to defend her perpetual virginity. 56 Bulgakov, FB, pp. 185–186. 57 “St. Joseph completes the Lord’s genealogy. He closes the series of forefathers and fathers that is celebrated in the Church over the two weeks preceding Christmas.” (Bulgakov, FB, p. 184.) 58 Ibid., p. 182. 59 Ibid. 60 St. Jerome argued that Mary was a perpetual virgin in De perpetua virginate Mariae. With exception to Tertullian, the majority of the Church Fathers argue that Mary did not have sexual relations with Joseph. 61 Bulgakov, “Heaven,” p. 16. 62 Cf. Bulgakov, FB, p. 110. 63 Bulgakov, BL, p. 416, footnote 28. 64 Cf. Bulgakov, FB, pp. 186–187.

176

Bulgakov’s Mariology

65 Ibid., p. 186. 66 On this note Bulgakov follows an earlier tradition found in several fathers and the Gospel of James. The majority of the fathers teach that St. Joseph was advanced in age when he married Mary and that he had children from a previous marriage. Notable fathers who opined this position include Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Sophronius, Theophylact, Euthymius, Ambrose, Hilary, and Gregory of tours. St. Jerome is a notable exception. (Cf. Bulgakov, FB, p. 172.) 67 Ibid., p. 182. 68 The US Bishops used this phrase to describe Christian families. (Cf. Catholic Church, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, (Washington: United States Catholic Conference, 1965), para. 52.) 69 Ibid., p. 182. 70 Andrew Louth argues that “The burning bush of Exodus 3 was taken by the Fathers to be a prefiguring of the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God: the bush burned and was not consumed, just as Mary conceived the Son of God and yet remained a virgin, intact after childbirth. Both of these were seen to speak of the presence of the divine which transfigures but does not harm the creature.” (Louth, “Mother of God,” p. 152.) 71 Bulgakov’s biblical and liturgical support for the perpetual virginity of Mary is Ezekiel’s revelation of “the image of the closed eastern gates through which no one passes except the Lord.” (Bulgakov, BB, p. 125.) Only Christ passed through Mary’s vaginal tract. Note that this verse (Ezekiel 44:2) is used during these mariological liturgical feasts: The Annunciation of Our Most Holy Lady, The Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, The Dormition of Our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, The Protection of Our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, and The Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Temple. 72 Bulgakov, BB, p. 130. 73 Ibid., p. 94 74 Ibid., pp. 94–95. 75 Bulgakov, “Correspondences,” p. 32. 76 Sergius N. Bulgakov, “A Brief Statement on the Place of the Virgin Mary in the Thought and Worship of the Orthodox Church Presented to Section IVc of the Edinburgh Conference,” (Sobornost 12 (1937): p. 31). 77 Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 249. 78 Crum, “The Doctrine of Sophia,” p. 58. 79 Bulgakov, “Hypostasis and Hypostaticity,” p. 35. 80 Virginity is synonymous with holiness and sanctity. Thus, it is fitting that John the Baptist, who was a celibate prophet and presumably a virgin, baptizes Christ. (Bulgakov, FB, p. 38.) 81 Bulgakov, BB, pp. 96, 103. 82 Bulgakov, “Hypostasis and Hypostaticity,” p. 35. 83 “The Mother of God was sinless, not a single attack of sin approached her most pure soul, the bearer of perfect virginity.” (Bulgakov, BB, p. 10.) 84 “Bulgakov explique la perpétuelle virginité de Marie par le fait qu’elle a recouvré la faculté qu’avaient eue nos premiers parents avant la chute d’engendrer ou de concevoir d’une manière spirtuelle, suprasexuelle. Marie est « essentiellement vierge » c’està-dire qu’elle est une créature suprasexuelle.” (Schultze, “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe,” pp. 230–231.) 85 For Bulgakov the flesh will be transfigured, or completely spiritualized. It will be transformed into an energy that will not be constrained by time and space. (Cf. Bulgakov, The Holy Grail & the Eucharist, p. 123.)

Bulgakov’s Mariology

177

86 Bulgakov, BB, p. 94. 87 Cf. Bulgakov, UF, p. 303. 88 Bulgakov does not deny the miraculous aspect of the Incarnation, but rather he is simply expressing how God works with and not against humankind. For him, it stands to reason that the most human mode of conception would be between Mary and another virginal spouse. However, such a conception could not produce the Incarnation. 89 Bulgakov, BB, pp. 93–94. 90 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 318–319. 91 This title is based on a reflection Bulgakov made on the Orthodox liturgical calendar of 1929 when the feast of the Annunciation fell within the Third Week of Lent or the week of “The Worship of the Cross.” (Sergius N. Bulgakov, “The Passion’s Annunciation,” (Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius 4 (March 1929): pp. 22–25), p. 22.) 92 Bulgakov, BB, p. 66. 93 In his article “The Passion’s Annunciation” Bulgakov argues that the crucifixion reveals the strength and power of love that is the foundation of the Annunciation more fully. In this way, the Annunciation is fulfilled in the Crucifixion. (Bulgakov, “The Passion’s Annunciation,” p. 25; Cf. Bulgakov, “Hypostasis and Hypostaticity,” p. 35.) 94 Cf. Bulgakov, Churchly Joy, p. 128. 95 Cf. Bulgakov, “The Passion’s Annunciation,” p. 23. 96 Cf. Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Krest Bogomateri: Iz Razmyshlenij Strastoi Sedmicy [The Cross of the Mother of God],” (Bogoslovskaia mysl’: Trudy Pravoslavnago Bogoslovskago Instituta v Parizhie 4 (1942): pp. 5–24), p. 6. 97 Bulgakov, BB, p. 9. 98 These terms are interchangeable since they have the same meaning for the disciples. With respect to divine-motherhood as a universal vocation, Bulgakov wrote “the womb-bearing of Christ himself, personal Divine Motherhood, which only later, in fullness of time, must be made universal and cosmic.” (Bulgakov, BB, p. 92.) 99 Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 240. 100 Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 4, Sec. 3, Location 4424 of 7314. 101 Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 242. 102 Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011), para. 1849. 103 Cf. Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Apocatastasis and Transfiguration” in Variable Readings in Russian Philosophy No 2: Sergius Bulgakov: Apocatastasis and Transfiguration, Edited and Translated by Boris Jakim, (London: The Variable Press, 1995), pp. 17–19. 104 Bulgakov, “Krest Bogomateri,” p. 13. 105 Throughout this text I have made mention of “hypostasis” in various contexts. The clearest definition that Bulgakov provides for hypostasis is in Hypostasis and Hypostaticity where he defines hypostasis as “self-consciousness.” (Bulgakov, “Hypostasis and Hypostaticity,” p. 18) The problem with this definition is that Church teaching is that Christ has both a divine and human consciousness, not a single Divine-human consciousness presumed in his definition. Moreover, to further complicate Bulgakov’s definition of hypostasis, he also defines hypostasis as the “I,” “spirit,” and “Divine image.” (Bulgakov, BB, pp. 23, 59.) Bulgakov attempts to avoid the error of Apollinarianism by stressing the uniqueness of Christ’s hypostasis. Christ’s divine-human hypostasis includes the human and divine consciousness. After the Ascension, the human and divine consciousness

178

106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

126

127 128 129 130

Bulgakov’s Mariology function as one; however, during his life on earth before his resurrection, Christ’s kenosis of divinity included his kenosis of his divine consciousness. The maturation of Christ includes a growing awareness in his human consciousness of his divine consciousness. (Cf. Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 4, Sec. 3.) Bulgakov, BL, p. 111. Cf. Bulgakov, BB, p. 41. Bulgakov, “Krest Bogomateri”, p. 22. Note that he further qualifies this statement with his suggestion that the Holy Spirit may also be called “co-savior.” Ibid., p. 23. More on this will said below in the context of Mary’s intercessory function. Cf. Bulgakov, “The Passion’s Annunciation,” p. 25. Bulgakov, BB, p. 68. Ibid., p. 69. Ibid., p. 67. This is a poor choice of words on the part of Bulgakov. Nearly a decade later in his The Comforter, Bulgakov argues that the “Spirit of God” is imprecise and can denote the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, or divinity. With regard to the Holy Spirit’s descent upon the Mother of God see Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 3. Cf. Tone five of the Litya from the liturgy of The Feast of the Dormition of Our Most Holy Lady, Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary. Jakim, “Sergius Bulgakov,” p. 250. For Mary, “[d]ivine-humanity” is the living out of her divine Motherhood. (Cf. Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles, Ch. 2, Sec. 4, Location 1380 of 1644.) Cf. Bulgakov. Relics and Miracles, Ch. 2, Sec. 4, Location 1298 of 1644. Bulgakov, BL, p. 358. Bulgakov moves beyond a simple punitive definition of death and afterlife, attributing a pedagogical function to them. Bulgakov, BL, p. 359. Ibid. Ibid., p. 358. “Understood in this way, as an essentially necessary part of human life, death is actually an act of continuing life.” (Bulgakov, BL, pp. 359–360.) His positive view on death is no doubt due to the Orthodoxy’s emphasis on Mary’s Dormition. (Cf., Thomas Allan Smith, “Death and Life: Sergej N. Bulgakov’s Sophiological Perspective,” AAASS Annual Convention, New Orleans, LA, November 2007.) Bulgakov vacillates between tripartite and bipartite conceptions of the human person; however, he prefers a tripartite account. His vacillation can be explained because the spirit and the soul are a composite entity. In one sense they are the same as the center of the hypostatic spiritual life of the person. However, they are different insofar as the spirit is the conscious center of the person whereas the soul is the means by which the spirit lives in the body. The soul is the “active principle of the body” and “receptacle of the spirit.” (Bulgakov, BL, p. 378.) It is the life of the spirit and after death remains with the spirit. (Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles, Ch. 2, Sec. 4, Location 1298 of 1644.) “Death separates the soul, quickened by the spirit and quickening the body, from the body, which becomes a corpse and dust . . . man is transformed from an incarnate being into a fleshless spirit.” (Ibid., Ch. 2, Sec. 4, Location 1296–1297 of 1644.) Yet the soul is the means through which the body will be glorified and become a spiritual body. Bulgakov locates consciousness, the will, and the mind within the spirit. Bulgakov, BL, p. 440. Ibid., p. 448. Graves, p. 92.

Bulgakov’s Mariology

179

131 Bulgakov, BL, p. 440. 132 The soul is made manifest in the blood, (Bulgakov, The Holy Grail & the Eucharist, pp. 113–114.) Thus, death is signified by the pouring out or absence of blood. (Ibid., p. 25.) 133 Bulgakov, BL, p. 101. 134 Cf. Bulgakov, Churchly Joy, p. 128. 135 Bulgakov, BL, p. 445, n. 41. 136 For a great discussion of this issue see Henri Crouzel, Origen: The Life and Thought of the First Great Theologian, Translated by A. S. Worrall, (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), p. 90. 137 Bulgakov, The Holy Grail & the Eucharist, p. 106. 138 Jakim argues that, for Bulgakov, miracles and miraculous events like the Virgin birth are not supernatural, but natural and completely in accord with humankind’s sophianic life. Boris Jakim, “Translator’s Introduction” to Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles, Location 50 of 1641. 139 The icon, with respect to Christ, is the site of the gracious presence of Christ, not his personal presence. (Bulgakov, The Holy Grail & the Eucharist, p. 123.) In other words, it depicts the reality of Christ’s glorious body but it is not the site of the reality itself, as is the case with the Eucharist. The Lord is present in the icon in his attributes, specifically his power and glory. 140 Bulgakov, BL, p. 435. 141 Williams, A Margin of Silence, p. 29. 142 Bulgakov, The Holy Grail & the Eucharist, p. 99. 143 Ibid., p. 98. Mortality is indicative of the spirit’s inability to master the body. 144 Ibid., p. 25. 145 Miraculous relics are indicative of the “special, transfigured state of the spiritual body” of a saint. (Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles, Ch. 1, Location 446 of 1644.) The Holy Spirit energizes the souls of some saints so that their body, to the extent it can do so before the General Resurrection, becomes a dynamic, spiritual body. (Ibid., Ch. 1, Location 446 of 1644.) The effect of this is that their body remains connected to their spirit, which is manifested in miracles associated with relics. (Ibid., Ch. 1, Location 334 of 1644.) As opposed to the Mother of God, who is glorified, the saints experience the first fruits of their future glorification. 146 Cf. Bulgakov, BB, p. 107. 147 Bulgakov highly esteems the liturgy as an infallible source of revelation. Therefore, the fact that devotion to Sophia develops in Russia is not a problem for Bulgakov, for it was a development guided by the Holy Spirit that nurtures our understanding of who God is through the liturgy. 148 Bulgakov, BB, p. 174. 149 Bulgakov, BL, p. 414. 150 Bulgakov, BB, p. 80. 151 Crum writes that the “story of man’s salvation, should be depicted ‘as the work of Sophia, as the fashioning and preservation of man’s sophianicity, beginning with his very creation.’” (Crum, “The Doctrine of Sophia,” pp. 66–67.) 152 Bulgakov, BB, p. 74. 153 Ibid., pp. 105–106. 154 Note that although sin is a conscious act, because it is a choice for nothing, ontological void, it does not involve hypostatization of Sophia. Sin is a choice against our nature. It is our attempt to hypostatize something outside of our self, which is nothing. Sin is the awareness of nothingness, or the void outside life in God. 155 This statement needs to be qualified. Because Mary is affected by the original sin regarding infirmity, she is unable to fully actualize the ramifications of her

180

156 157 158 159 160

161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171

172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183

Bulgakov’s Mariology relationship to Sophia until she is glorified. Perhaps the fact that Mary performs no miracles in her lifetime at least according to the Gospels and tradition but after Dormition, performs many miracles, is evidence that only in her glorification did Mary completely overcome her bodily infirmity, allowing her to intercede on behalf of humanity miraculously. (Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles, Ch. 2, Sec. 3, Location 1212 of 1644.) Bulgakov, BB, p. 107. Deane-Drummond, Christ and Evolution, p. 122; Cf. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 127. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Epilogue, Location 6194 of 6301. Ibid., Ch. 5, Sec. 4, Location 4197 of 6301. Sergius N. Bulgakov, Sophiology of Death, Translated Thomas Allan Smith, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017), p. 291. (manuscript); Cf. Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Sofiologja smerti” in Tikhiya Dumy, pp. 336–381, Paris: YMCA Press, 1976. Michael Plekon, Living Icons: Persons of Faith in the Eastern Church, (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004), p. 36. Crum, “The Doctrine of Sophia,” p. 44. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 4, Location 4196 of 6301. For this reason Bulgakov contends that the icons of the Mother of God have a special warmth and beauty for the Orthodox believer. (Bulgakov, Icons and the Name of God, Ch. 1, Sec 8, Location 1308 of 2657.) Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 4, Location 4196 of 6301.) Ibid., Endnotes, Location 6189 of 6301, n. 28. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 99. Mary’s beauty is intimately related to her role in the final judgment. This is developed in his book The Bride of the Lamb, see below for more information. Bulgakov, BB, p. 115. Cf. Ibid., p. 86. In The Burning Bush, Bulgakov provides a typological interpretation of the manifestations of glory in the Old Testament: the glory of God is made manifest in Mary (the glory of creation) and Christ (the glory of divinity). (Cf. Crum, “The Doctrine of Sophia,” pp. 61–63.) With respect to Christ, Christ is the glory of divinity insofar as He is that which the Holy Spirit glorifies. Mary is the glory of creation insofar as “she participates in the mission of the Holy Spirit. She is the dwelling place of the Glory of God but is herself glorified.” (Bulgakov, BB, p. 118.) Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 32. Cf. Bulgakov, “Religion and Art”, p. 176. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 130. Bulgakov, The Holy Grail & the Eucharist, p. 39. Bulgakov, “Hypostasis and Hypostaticity,” p. 46. Schipflinger, p. 279. Bulgakov, BL, p. 302. Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles, Ch. 1, Location 306 of 1644. For Bulgakov, the Resurrection of Christ was not an “external act, a deus ex machina, but as a creative disclosure of the original powers of the human nature.” (Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles, Ch. 2, Sec. 4, Locations 1464–1465 of 1644.) Matter ultimately becomes transparent for the human spirit through the Holy Spirit. (Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 5, Location 5186 of 6301.) Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles, Ch. 2, Sec. 1, Locations 734 of 1644. Bulgakov writes, “Christ’s miracles were the works of a Man.” (Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles, Ch. 2, Sec. 2, Locations 775 of 1644.) He argues that to attribute his miracles solely to Christ’s divinity is tantamount to Nestorianism, separating his humanity from his divinity.

Bulgakov’s Mariology

181

184 Bulgakov takes a sober position on miracles; he argues that a healing through prayer is as miraculous as a healing through medicine. They are both actions of human power. The difference is simply in the means by why the miracle is enacted. In the first action, the miracle worker redirects the laws of nature, actualizing in some manner the human potential before the original sin, but the miracle is the result of a human power. (Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles, Ch. 2, Sec. 1, Locations 734 of 1644.) 185 Without substantiating his claim, Bulgakov argues that Mary has more “miracleworking icons” and “revealed” icons attributed to her than all other saints and Christ. (Bulgakov, Icons and the Name of God, Ch. 1, Sec. 8, Location 1318 of 2657.) 186 If the “Spirit is natura naturans, which through the word implanted in it, engenders natura naturata,” Mary’s beauty and glory reflect her nature as complete, natura naturata. (Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 4, Sec. 2, Location 2949 of 6301.) 187 Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 127. 188 Robert Slesinski, “Bulgakov’s Angelology,” (St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49.1–2 (2005): pp. 183–202), p. 200; Cf. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 274. 189 Bulgakov, JL, p. 33. 190 Cf. St. John Chrysostom, The Fathers of the Church: Homilies on Genesis 1–17, (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986); Bulgakov, BL, p. 121. 191 Bulgakov, JL, p. 31. 192 Bulgakov goes as far to say that polytheism and other natural religions are based on a misapprehension of the angels who are present in the world. 193 Bulgakov, JL, p. 76. 194 Ibid., p. 66. 195 Ibid., p. 43. 196 Ibid. 197 Ibid., p. 74. 198 Ibid., p. 68. Bulgakov speculates that the guardian angels are intimately involved in the dispensation of sophianic grace. (Ibid., 66.) They seem to be the means through which we receive this grace. 199 Ibid., p. 98, n. 24. 200 Cf. The feast of The Protection of the Mother of God (October 1st) commemorates the tradition of Mary offering her veil as protection of Christians. 201 Bulgakov, JL, p. 47. 202 Ibid., p. 98, n. 24. 203 Ibid., p. 47. 204 Ibid., p. 156. 205 Sophia Maria Compton, “Sophia Compton on The Burning Bush and Bulgakov,” (Live Journal 8 August 2008, www.livejournal.com, August 1, 2012), p. 12. 206 Cf. Bulgakov, JL, p. 47. 207 Bulgakov, FB, p. 133. 208 Cf. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 129. 209 Bulgakov argues that Christ’s friendship with John the Baptist has a recapitulative function in as much it provides Christ with the opportunity to redeem human friendship. 210 Cf. Bulgakov, FB, p. 162. The Deisis is usually depicted on the iconostasis dividing the altar from the naïve of the Church. 211 Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), p. 102.

182

Bulgakov’s Mariology

212 Robert Slesinski, “On the Ontological Significance of St. John the Forerunner,” (Communio 31 (Spring 2004): pp. 500–508), p. 502. 213 Ibid. 214 Bulgakov concludes that John’s exceptional holiness transforms him into an earthly angel. However, Bulgakov refuses to speculate on how this is possible. (Cf. Bulgakov, FB, p. 134.) He suggests that in order for an angel, who is an individual being, to be affected by the Incarnation it needs for the Incarnation to be revealed to it by another angel who was incorporated into the Body of Christ. At best only guardian angels would be directly affected by the Incarnation through their co-angelic counterparts, their human hypostasis. In other words, Bulgakov makes axiomatic the claim that God will be “all in all” whereby God is fully manifested in creaturely Sophia (1 Cor 15:28). John is the means for the manifestation to affect angels. (Cf. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 113.) John serves this function, and he is the “all-angel, who participates in all the orders of the angelic assemblies.” (Bulgakov, FB, p. 168.) Therefore, John’s transformation into an angel is necessary. 215 Boris Jakim, “Introduction” in Sergius N. Bulgakov, The Friend of the Bridegroom: On the Orthodox Veneration of the Forerunner, Translated by Boris Jakim, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), p. 15. 216 Ibid., p. 79. 217 Bulgakov’s stress on the importance of friendship that John the Baptist gives to Christ is no doubt influenced by Florensky, who emphasized that friendship is the greatest expression of Christian love. 218 Cf. Bulgakov, FB, p. 43. Note they are both involved in the birth of Christ. Mary is involved in Christ’s immaculate birth, and John is involved in Christ’s spiritual birth, for he baptizes Christ. (Ibid., p. 51.) 219 Ibid., p. 161. 220 Ibid., p. 134. 221 Cf. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 113. 222 Bulgakov, FB, p. 168. 223 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Mary: The Church at Its Source, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005), p. 27. 224 Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 136. 225 The main scriptures he uses to justify his position are 1 Corinthians 6 and 12. He does not mention the epistles to Timothy that speak more clearly about Church order and the hierarchy of the Church. (Bulgakov, BL, p. 261.) 226 Hierarchal and institutional structures are necessary but secondary in his account. For this reason he writes relatively little about the role of the hierarchy in his theological corpus. (Cf. Williams, A Margin of Silence, p. 33.) Nevertheless, Bulgakov did not reject the importance and necessity of the hierarchy; Bulgakov was quite passionate about the need for Church order and the hierarchy. This is not surprising considering that he was not only an Orthodox priest but also well-versed in the Church Fathers, especially the Ante-Nicene Fathers, who stressed the importance of the hierarchy for Christian life. For instance, at Faith and Order meeting in Lausanne he spoke to the Protestant majority in attendance about the necessity of the ecclesial hierarchy. (Cf. Bryn Geffert, “Anglicans and Orthodox between the Wars,” (Ph.D. diss., Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2003), p. 143.) However, for Bulgakov, the institutional church is a necessary historical development that arises overtime, and it is intimately connected to the Eucharist because it helps guarantee the validity of the sacrament. (Graves, p. 69; Cf. chapter three of Bulgakov’s Orthodox Church.) 227 In Bulgakov’s book, Sophia: The Wisdom of God, his preference for an ontological interpretation of the Church is clear. The Church, he argues, “has a theandric

Bulgakov’s Mariology

228 229

230

231 232 233

183

character; it is, in fact, Divine-Humanity in actu.” (Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 134.) Bulgakov follows a patristic tradition evident in the writings of the fathers like the Shepherd of Hermas that emphasize the ontological characteristics of the Church. (Ibid.) In The Bride of the Lamb, Bulgakov consciously develops this position. (Cf. Bulgakov, BL, pp. 253–254.) For these reasons, Boris Bobrinskoy criticized Bulgakov for a deficient theology of the hierarchy. (Boris Bobrinskoy, “The Church and the Holy Spirit in Twentieth Century Russia,” (The Ecumenical Review 52.3 (July 2000): pp. 326–342), p. 337) Albeit the hierarchy is not a central theme in his ecclesiology, Bulgakov argues that the hierarchy is necessary. Bulgakov incorporates historical criticisms into his theology and refuses to grant simplistic notions of apostolic succession. Even though Bulgakov concedes that the hierarchy develops in the post-apostolic Church, it was an organic function of the Church, which of course was/is guided by the Holy Spirit. Hierarchy is a constitutive of the human condition but also the Church. But Bulgakov interprets the hierarchy primarily as a service to the Church. Its primary importance is the celebration of the sacraments; it is a Eucharistic institution. (Sergius Bulgakouff, “The Hierarchy and the Sacraments” in The Ministry and the Sacraments: Report of the Theological Commission Appointed by the Continuation Committee of the Faith and Order Movement Under the Chairmanship of the Right Rev. Arthur Cayley Headlam, C.H., D.D. Bishop of Gloucester, Edited by Roderic Dunkerley, pp. 95–123, (London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1937), p. 106.) This reveals the communal character of the hierarchy, which as in the case of the Eucharist that must be celebrated in a community, cannot function without the laity. (Ibid., p. 107.) The Church acts through the hierarchy, but the hierarchy is an organ of the Church, not the Church itself. Bulgakov, BL, p. 273. Bulgakov’s statement is tempered by his inclusivity. Not only do all churches, insofar as they have truth, participate in the Orthodox Church, but the unity of the churches will only be realized when interior unity has first been established. The restoration of inner-Orthodoxy is a prerequisite for outer, canonical unity. (Cf. Sergius Bulgakov, “I Believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” (The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius 3 (1931): pp. 90–104).) The invisible Church is perceived by the religious consciousness. Religious consciousness is necessary since religion is based on the experience of the transcendent becoming immanent. (Bulgakov, UF, p. 16.) Thus, with respect to religious consciousness, Bulgakov writes: “Not everything is understandable, but God is in everything and in this is the great joy of faith and submissiveness. We draw near to the abyss where the fiery sword of the archangel again bars to us the further path of cognition. It is so – religious experience tells us about this entirely firmly, even religious philosophy needs to accept this as the original definition – in the humility of reason, for the sacrifice of humility is demanded from reason too, as the highest reasonableness of folly. The unutterable, unnameable, incomprehensible, unknowable, unthinkable God is revealed to creation in a name, a word, a cult, theophanies, incarnation. Glory to Your condescension, o Lord!” (Bulgakov, UF, p. 83.) With respect to Church teaching, Bulgakov contends that religious experience precedes and prepares the ground for dogmatic formulation. (Sergius N. Bulgakov, “The Spirit of Prophecy,” (Sobornost 19 (September 1939): pp. 3–7), p. 7.) Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 136. Bulgakov, BL, p. 253. Cf. Bulgakov, Social Teaching in Modern Russian Orthodox Theology, p. 12; Cf. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 136.

184 234 235 236 237

238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250

251 252

253 254 255 256

Bulgakov’s Mariology Gallaher, “There Is Freedom,” p. 128. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 142. Bulgakov, BB, p. 105. Because of this, Bulgakov lauds Mary as the “primary hypostasis of the Church, the personal center.” (Bulgakov, BL, p. 265.) Mary is the creaturely realization of the Church. Bulgakov does not make this same claim about Christ, for Christ is not a member of the Church, but rather the head of the Church. He is the means by which the Church is operative in the world. And thus members of the Church participate in the Christofication of the world, namely the “clarification and effectuation of the divine-human principle in every human being.” (Valliere, MRT, p. 347.) With Mary, Christians live out what Christ taught and made possible through the Body of Christ, the Church. Thus, it is imprecise to place Christ within the Church since the Church exists within his divine-human being. In other words, the Christ circumscribes the Church, but Christ also transcends the militant and triumphant Church. Mary on the other hand is entirely included in the Church. Bulgakov, BL, p. 526. See also Groberg, “The Feminine Occult Sophia in the Russian Religious Renaissance, p. 233. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 138. Cf. Bulgakov, BL, p. 261. Barbara Newman, “Sergius Bulgakov and the Theology of Divine Wisdom,” (St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 22.1 (1978): pp. 39–73), p. 64; Bulgakov, BL, p. 261; Bulgakov, Churchly Joy, p. 26. Sergius N. Bulgakov, “Gottesmutter und die Oekumenische Bewegung,” (Sonderheft ‘Die Gottesmutter’ 6–7 (1931): pp. 243–246), p. 246. Bulgakov, BL, pp. 459–460 in Louth, “Mother of God,” p. 162. Cf. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 252. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 120. To this we may also add: Unwed Bride, Eternal Bride, Sister-Bride. (Bulgakov, BB, p. 103.) Cf. Bulgakov, BB, p. 104. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 137. Cf. Louth, “Mother of God,” p. 163. Bulgakov’s teaching that Mary meets every soul after death is based on the “Canon of Prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos at the departure of a soul.” Since Bulgakov accepts the tradition that Mary meets every soul after it dies, and death for Bulgakov has primarily a pedagogical function, it is reasonable that Bulgakov concludes that apokatastasis will occur. (Cf. Bulgakov, BB, p. 70.) This section was inspired by my article: Sisto, “Making the New Evangelization Credible,” pp. 110–131. He believed that not only was the ecumenical movement the work of the Holy Spirit, but, as Gallaher noted, he “looked for Russia’s redemption from the tragedy of history in an ecumenical Orthodox Church led by the Russian Church.” (Brandon Gallaher, “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought,” (Sobornost 24.1 (2002): pp. 24–55), pp. 37–38; Cf. Bulgakov, “The Old and the New,” p. 510. Bulgakov, BB, p. 48. This, he argues, is evident in the coldness of Protestant churches. (Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, p. 118.) Bulgakov, “The Question of the Veneration of the Virgin Mary at the Edinburgh Conference,” p. 28. Geffert, p. 143. Cf. Bulgakov, “The Papal Encyclical and the Lausanne Conference,” (The Christian East 9.3 (1928): pp. 116–127), p. 127; Valliere, MRT, p. 283; Gallaher, “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought,” p. 45.

Bulgakov’s Mariology

185

257 Cf. Bulgakov, “A Brief Statement on the Place of the Virgin Mary in the Thought and Worship of the Orthodox Church,” p. 29. 258 On creativity with respect to the spiritual life he wrote: “man by his creative acts extracts spiritual beauty and clothes the world in it” and again “[l]et us bring to Him [Jesus] the creative impulse of our spirit and the fruit of this impulse.” (Bulgakov, Churchly Joy, p. 34.) 259 According to Bulgakov, Mary’s intrinsic value for the hypostatic union is a historical fact. As I mentioned above, the council of Ephesus declared the Theotokos on Christological grounds. The neglect of Mary is tantamount to the neglect of the teachings of the council of Ephesus that were necessary in the formulation of the teachings on the hypostatic union. We lose the real content of what it means to say that Christ is fully human without the dogma of the Theotokos. 260 Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, p. 116. 261 Recall that Bulgakov emphasizes the role of humanity in salvation history. Regarding Church history, he writes “[h]istory is a domain of human creativity, while creativity cannot exist without prophecy . . . a consciousness of creative aims, a striving towards the future.” (Sergius N. Bulgakov, “The Church Universal,” (The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Albans and St. Sergius 25 (September 1934), pp. 10–15), p. 14.) 262 In the Unfading Light, Bulgakov writes: “The whole of Protestantism is sick with this kind of individualism, which gnaws away at it like a worm, and it grows weak religiously. It is all the more difficult to believe that the truth is the truth, i.e., that it demands worship for it and selflessness; it is much easier to take this truth as my opinion which I propose as truth” (Bulgakov, UF, p. 96; Cf. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 4, Location 4627 of 6301.) 263 Cf. Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, Vol 2: The Works of God, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 200; Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), pp. 267–269. 264 Perry, p. 271. 265 Nancy J. Duff, “Mary Servant of the Lord” in Protestant Perspectives on Mary: Blessed One, Edited by Beverly Gaventa, pp. 59–70, (London: Westminster John Know Press, 2002), pp. 61–62. 266 Ibid., p. 268. 267 Cf. Ibid., Ch. 3, Sec. 4, Location 2968 2967–3058 of 7314. 268 Perry, pp. 273–274. Even though Perry shares much in common with Bulgakov, there is no evidence that he is familiar with him. 269 Ibid., p. 274. 270 Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 3, Sec. 4, Location 2969–2970 of 7314. 271 Bulgakov, “Correspondence,” p. 33. 272 Ibid., p. 39. 273 In The Bride of the Lamb, Bulgakov diagnoses the error of Protestantism to be anthropological, namely the Protestant emphasis that humankind has lost the image of God. (Bulgakov, BL, p. 325.) Moreover, poor comprehension of Christian anthropology is also evident in Catholic Mariology. If Protestantism fails to recognize Mary because of its lack of anthropology, Catholicism misconstrues the importance of Mary as a result of its faulty anthropology. Referring to the Immaculate Conception, he wrote: “Catholics, displaying here the general defect of their anthropology, have referred this idea of metaphysical violence against nature and human nature to the very conception of the Mother of God.” (Sergius N. Bulgakov, Unfading Light: Contemplations and Speculations, Edited and Translated by Thomas Allan Smith, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), p. 281.) 274 Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, p. 116.

186

Bulgakov’s Mariology

275 Graves provides an interesting insight into points of contact between Bulgakov and Martin Luther. He argues that Bulgakov like Luther agrees that Mary provides an example of commitment to God’s will. (Graves, p. 135.) He continues that Bulgakov’s Mariology offers no diminution of Christ significance for salvation history. (Graves, p. 141.) Although Bulgakov does not address this similarity, in his The Orthodox Church, he argues that the active faith of Protestantism has affinity with the Orthodox notion of discipleship. (Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, p. 108.) Perhaps there is an additional point of contact here; for both Bulgakov and Luther, Mary was the greatest example of activefaith. Like Luther, Bulgakov would agree that Mary was the greatest disciple of Christ. Nevertheless, Graves warns that Bulgakov divinizes Mary too greatly so as to make her impalpable for Protestants. (Graves, p. 145.) Graves concern is not new but rather reiterates the concern of Bulgakov’s Orthodox contemporaries. Many of these theologians argued that his Mariology was excessive and were concerned about Protestant reactions to it. (Cf. Geffert, p. 143.) 276 Bate, ed., p. 208. Interestingly, in these minutes there is no mention of the infamous episode where Bulgakov was interrupted and scoffed at during his paper on the Mother of God. 277 Bulgakov, “A Brief Statement on the Place of the Virgin Mary in the Thought and Worship of the Orthodox Church,” p. 29. 278 Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, p. 118. Bulgakov associates the presence of Mary with the experience of warmth. 279 Ibid., p. 116. 280 Ibid., p. 117. 281 Ibid., p. 122. 282 Ibid., p. 123. 283 Bulgakov is clear that all churches participate in the true Church in some respect. However, the fullest historical expression of the Church is the Orthodox Church. (Cf. Bulgakov, “I Believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” pp. 17–31), pp. 21–22. 284 Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2683. 285 Sergius N. Bulgakov, “By Jacob’s Well,” (The Fellowship of St. Albans and St. Sergius 22 (December 1933): pp. 7–17), p. 11. 286 On the importance of praying to Mary, Perry writes: “‘[t]o ask Mary to pray for us is to meet him [Jesus Christ] there.’ In her representative and maternal roles, Mary is the unique space for God, in and through whom the church continues to plead God’s Word not only to God but also to itself.” (Perry, p. 302.) We encounter Christ in a unique manner in Mary. Similarly, the saints bring Christ to us in different contexts that are more or less applicable to our experiences. When we venerate, or pray to them, we express our solidarity with them and look to them for guidance that inevitably brings us to the living Christ. Bulgakov makes similar claims. For Bulgakov, Mary and the saints are “christs in Jesus Christ.” (Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, p. 120.) 287 Bulgakov, BL, p. 415; Bulgakov, BB, pp. 112–114. 288 Bulgakov, BL, p. 410. 289 Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 229; Bulgakov, BL, p. 410. 290 Bulgakov, BL, pp. 413–414. 291 Ibid., p. 416. 292 Ibid., p. 458. 293 Cf. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 234. 294 Bulgakov, BL, p. 459. 295 Ibid., pp. 459–460. The Prayer of the Mother of God for mercy for her children is the prayer of the Holy Spirit. (Cf. Bulgakov, Churchly Joy, p. 13.) 296 Bulgakov, BL, p. 414.

Bulgakov’s Mariology 297 298 299 300

301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309

310

311

187

Ibid. Cf. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 232. Bulgakov, BL, p. 460. Mary’s sorrow over the sins of her children leads her children to repentance. Bulgakov states that “if people could see the tears of the most pure eyes, they would tremble and their hardened hearts would melt . . . but our eyes do not see, do not know . . . They will open at the end of the world on the Day of Judgment.” (Bulgakov, Churchly Joy, p. 11.) Bulgakov, BL, p. 413. Ibid., p. 416. Louth, “Mother of God,” p. 163. Bulgakov, BL, p. 416. Cf. Ibid., p. 488. Just as Mary was metaphorically pierced by a sword when she witnessed the brutality of her Son’s passion; she is pierced for her compassion for all of the damned in hell. (Ibid., p. 515.) Bulgakov, Churchly Joy, p. 22; Bulgakov, BL, pp. 515–517. Bulgakov, BL, p. 489. Bulgakov does not deny Revelation 19:20; or 20:10 that speak to the eternal damnation of unrepentant sinners. Rather he allegorizes them: the “beast and the false prophet” are false principles of life that will no longer exist. (Bulgakov, BL, p. 504.) As for Satan and his minions, they exist in a new state after the dread judgment. Bulgakov argues that this state should not be properly referred to as hell since hell for him is a qualitative state relative to Heaven. (Sergius N. Bulgakov, Apocatastasis and Transfiguration, Comprising His Essay ‘On the Question of the Apocatastasis of the Fallen Spirits,’ with a memoir by Sister Joanna Reitlinge, Translated and Edited by Boris Jakim, (New Haven: The Variable Press, 1995), p. 20) This second death is the beginning of Satan’s eternal torment; albeit “eternal” for Bulgakov means something like suffering outside of time as opposed to never ending suffering, for he argues that even the demons are ultimately redeemed. Simply speaking, after the dread judgment, the Devil can no longer influence people, and at that point the Devil will experience in full force the isolation from God that it has sought. This will in turn lead the Devil to repentance. This is not to deny the Devil’s freedom but rather to stress the recapitulative function of punishment which helps aid the Devil in its rational reorientation. Given the fact that the Devil is a rational spirit, it is likely that the Devil would eventually recognize how illogical sin really is. Bulgakov does not take seriously the possibility that even Satan could freely choose eternity without God, for this is simply non-existence. We find here Bulgakov’s optimism. Bulgakov argues that satanism is precisely the Devil’s struggle with who it is: an angel that is loved by God. It tries to erase this memory and replace its foundation with something else, but there is nothing else but God. Only after this second death will Satan as well as his minions realize the love of God in their lives. Satan cannot remain indifferent to the love of Christ and the Mother of God. (Ibid., p. 30.) Moreover, Bulgakov refuses to limit divine Love, advocating that if the Devil suffers for eternity, this would limit the unlimited, God’s Love. (Bulgakov, BL, p. 505.) Bulgakov’s description of hell is similar to the Catholic Catechism’s description of Purgatory. Compare what I described above to this statement by the Catholic Church: “[a]ll who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.” (Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1030.) Paul L. Gavrilyuk, “Universal Salvation in the Eschatology of Sergius Bulgakov,” (Journal of Theological Studies 57 (April 2006): pp. 110–132), p. 125.

188

Bulgakov’s Mariology

312 This idea is an extension of Bulgakov’s reflection on the Church’s canonization practice in which the Church distinguishes between minor and major saints as well as different orders of saints. (Bulgakov, BL, pp. 479–480.) This practive corresponds to the degrees of honor and glorification these saints experience in heaven. The most righteous on earth will be the most glorified in heaven. The implication of this, as Plekon illustrates, is that holiness is for all people, regardless of culture, gender, and ethnicity. Every person is called to make heroic acts of holiness during their life on earth. Holiness is not perfection but the triumph of Christ made manifest in one’s life. (Michael Plekon, Hidden Holiness, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009), pp. 43–44.) 313 The Parousia entails the dread judgment as the “entry into the realm of divine ‘fire,’ but also the revelation of Christ and Mary." (Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 232.) 314 Graves, p. 97. 315 Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 228. 316 Compare “[t]here will be no special Parousia of the Holy Spirit, for he comes into the world to remain in it; but there will be, as it were, a new manifestation of Pentecost in all its power and, most important of all, in the personal revelation of the Third Hypostasis, that which at present we lack” (emphasis added) (Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 112.) from Sophia: The Wisdom of God to “The dyadic character of the Parousia is obscured to some extent by the fact that the Third Hypostasis does not have a personal revelation” (emphasis added) (Bulgakov, BL, p. 406.) to illustrate Bulgakov’s development on his theology of the revelation of the Holy Spirit. 317 Vogel scoffs at Graves, who wrote a dissertation on Bulgakov’s pneumatology, for not recognizing this peculiarity. (Jeffrey A. Vogel, “How the Spirit Hides: Rival Conception in Recent Orthodox Theology,” (St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 53.1 (2009): pp. 99–122), p. 114, n. 40.) However, Vogel misses Graves’ mariological treatment of the Holy Spirit’s revelation. Grave argues that the Holy Spirit is revealed in the eschaton in the Virgin Mary. (Graves, p. 146.) 318 Bulgakov, BL, p. 411. 319 Bulgakov, BB, p. 99. Although Bulgakov rejects the Third Testament, Bulgakov retains the eschatological element of Third Testament theologies popular in the Russian Religious Renaissance. (Cf. Bobrinskoy, p. 333.) 320 Cf. Rosenthal, “Nature and Function of Sophia,” p. 170. During the Russian Religious Renaissance, the Third Testament was a popular idea. According to proponents like Merezhkovsky, the Holy Spirit will be revealed at the final judgment. This will involve the revelation of eternal motherhood both in Mary and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the connection between Mary and the Holy Spirit was not unique to Bulgakov. However, Merezhkovsky argues for two separate revelations as opposed to the revelation of the Holy Spirit through the Mother of God. Merezhkovsky wrote: “At the last judgment the Mother intercedes with the Son for the convicted; but the Spirit, which intercedes for us with unuttered sighs, is this not also eternal motherhood? The first appearance of Eternal Woman-hood is the Mother of God in Christianity; the last in the Apocalypse— the woman clothed with the sun-is the revelation of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Flesh, the Church as the Kingdom, the God-Man in God-Humanity.” (Merezhkovsky, ‘Ne mir, no mech’, P.S.S., X, p. 123 cited in C. H. Bedford, “Dmitry Merezhkovsky: The Third Testament and the Third Humanity,” (The Slavonic and East European Review 42.98 (December 1963): pp. 144–160), p. 149. 321 Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 122; Cf. Legisa, p. 57. 322 Bulgakov, BL, p. 411; Cf. Valliere, MRT, p. 325. 323 Graves, p. 99.

Bulgakov’s Mariology 324 325 326 327 328 329 330

331 332 333 334

335 336

337 338 339 340 341 342 343

344 345 346

347 348

189

Cf. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 229. Graves, p. 99. Cf. Ibid., pp. 145–150. Ibid., p. 99. Cf. Walter Sisto, “On the Acquisition of the Holy Spirit: Sergius Bulgakov and the Theotokos,” (Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 54.1–2 (2013): pp. 13–32). Bulgakov, “Hypostasis and Hypostaticity,” p. 34. Bulgakov, BB, p. 91. Likewise, he wrote: “[t]he Logos who was born of the Virgin is born in the souls of the faithful, for every church soul participates in divine motherhood of the Mother-Church, the Mother of God.” (Ibid., pp. 92, 105.) He stated more clearly that “the womb bearing of Christ himself, personal divine Motherhood, which only later, in fullness of time, must be made universal and cosmic.” (Ibid., p. 92) Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 177. Madonna Sophia Compton, More Glorious Than the Seraphim: Early Homilies and Feasts in Honor of Mary, (Create Space Independent Publishing Platform, 2010), p. 160. Crum, “The Doctrine of Sophia,” p. 58. The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, p. 56. Similar to the ARCIC statement, Bulgakov writes, “[b]oth [the glorification and resurrection] are essentially anticipations of what is prepared for the humanity of the whole Christ in the risen life; both were bestowed in advance upon the Mother of God.” (Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 118.) Newman, p. 65. Mary fulfills the destiny of humankind, to receive God. Bulgakov argues that the original sin frustrates God’s plan for humankind that included “the direct path to Annunciation.” (Bulgakov, Churchly Joy, p. 80.) Mary’s holiness and fiat fulfills the destiny of humankind, to be deified or become a Spirit-bearing hypostasis. (Cf. Ibid., p. 80.) Bulgakov, BB, p. 92. Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, p. 121. Bulgakov, “Hypostasis and Hypostaticity,” p. 34. Bulgakov, BB, p. 81. Cf. Graves, pp. 76–84. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5. Sec. 5, Location 4540 of 6301. Prophecy plays an important role throughout his theological works. For Bulgakov, the importance of the book of Revelation is that it reminds us of the necessary element of prophecy. (Bulgakov, “The Apocalypse of John,”p. 157.) “A non-apocalyptical, non-eschatological Christianity is a dangerous counterfeit of the real thing and secularization of it.” (Ibid., p. 158.) Bobrinskoy argues that for Bulgakov to follow Christ, “to take up the one’s cross,” is prophetic. (Bobrinskoy, p. 329.) Thus prophecy is one of the most important gifts of the Holy Spirit. Cf. Bulgakov, “The Spirit of Prophecy,” p. 3. Ibid., p. 5. Bulgakov stressed that the Church should engage the problems in our society. His students carried out his ideas in practice. (Cf. Michael Plekon, “Social Theory Working with Theology,” (Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 47.1–2 (2004): pp. 89–102.) Bulgakov, BB, p. 43. About discipleship, Bulgakov writes: “[t]he path of the Christian cannot and should not remain solely the path of passive humility; he must inevitably allow a place in himself for creative activity, for the taking of responsibility, for selfdetermination and the audacity that is inevitably connected (and even in a

190

349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358

359 360

361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368

Bulgakov’s Mariology certain sense identical) with the latter. The Spirit that lives in us demands this of us, calls us to this. The cross is not only passive reception; it is also actively taking, creative self-determination and audacity.” (Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 4, Location 4592–4595 of 63021.) Passivity is humility whereas activity is audacity. (Ibid., Ch. 5, Sec. 4, Location 4653 of 6301.) Cf. Ibid. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 5, Location 4592–4594 of 6301. Graves, p. 75. Cf. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 5, Location 4593 of 6301. Cf. Bulgakov, “Krest Bogomateri,” p. 22. Ibid., p. 23. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 5, Location 4615 of 6301. Nichols, Wisdom from Above, p. 178. Ibid. Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 5, Sec. 1, Location 4577 of 7314. Gender is a function of a hypostasis. In Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe v Bozhestve Bulgakov argues that Christ was a pure male. (Bulgakov, “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe v Bozhestve,” p. 371) Moreover, in Sophia: The Wisdom of God he insists that Christ assumed human nature “in its masculine form.” (Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 100.) Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 1, Sec. 4, Location 1667 of 7314; Legisa, p. 62. Ibid., Ch. 3, Sec. 4, Location 2998–2999 of 7314. Bulgakov continues: “this duality corresponds not only to the duality of the natures of Christ in their union but also to the duality of the hypostases of these natures in their separateness; and the human nature, being in-hypostatized in the Logos, must have its fullness and autonomous being pre-realized in its proper hypostasis, the Virgin Mary. Thus, Christ has His humanity in a double manner: in Himself, included in His proper hypostasis, and outside of Himself, hypostatized in the female hypostasis of Mary (for His humanity is not only flesh in the physical sense; it is also a living humanity in the totality of its spiritual-psychical-corporeal being). Connected with this is the revelation concerning the participation in the Incarnation not only of the Second hypostasis, the one made incarnate, but also of the Third hypostasis, the one that makes incarnate: The image of the Logos is the male Infant, maturing into the image of the perfect Male, whereas the image of the Spirit-bearer is the Virgin-Mother, who bears in Herself the One who is born of Her.” (Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 3, Sec. 4, Location 2998–3005 of 7314.) Bulgakov, BL, p. 98. Ibid., p. 99. Bulgakov seems to follow Solov’ev on this point; Solov’ev also stresses the masculinity of Christ in contrast to the femininity of Mary. Bulgakov, Sophia, p. 99. Cf. Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 1, Sec. 4, Location 1676 of 7314. Interestingly, in The Comforter Bulgakov is clear that Adam is “one, but it is also dual, as the unity of the male and female principles.” (Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 4, Sec. 1, Location 2749 of 6301.) Mary works with the grace of the Holy Spirit. But the stress is on her cooperation with this grace. Bulgakov, Churchly Joy, p. 31.

6

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

This chapter will examine the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology. For this purpose, I have divided this chapter into two parts. I begin with the reception of his thought primarily within the diaspora Russian Orthodox community. I will examine Georges Florovsky and Vladimir Lossky’s responses to Bulgakov because their “neo-patristic movement” that emerges in the émigré communities in Paris and North America is in stark contrast to Sophiology. Moreover, the lack of reception of Bulgakov’s works by Orthodox Christians in the Europe and North America is in part due to the dominance of their theology in the decades following Bulgakov’s death.1 The conservatism of the neo-patristic movement in terms of its methodology and use of the Church Fathers left no room for the speculative animus of Bulgakov’s Sophiology. However, Vladimir Lossky will be the main interlocutor, and he is Bulgakov’s well-known, influential critic. My discussion will end with a brief evaluation of St. John Maximovitch criticisms of Bulgakov. Although St. John Maximovitch was a Russian theologian and bishop in the diaspora, he was not affiliated with the Paris émigré community or the neo-patristic movement. St. John Maximovitch, in fact, was a member of Russian Orthodox community under the jurisdiction of the Karlovtsy Synod (i.e., Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia or ROCOR). St. Maximovitch is an important voice because he is a revered saint and bishop within ROCOR, and his criticisms of Bulgakov are indicative of the lack of reception of Bulgakov in the ROCOR community today.2 The second part of this chapter evaluates Bulgakov’s contribution to theology in light of feminist theology. This is important for two reasons. First, considering the significant role sexuality and his typology of women play in Bulgakov’s Mariology, this analysis will help us to evaluate if his thoughts and ideas are outmoded for contemporary discourse. Second, because of Bulgakov’s stress on the femininity as a fundamental theological category, several feminist theologians have begun the process of receiving his thought. This evaluation of Bulgakov’s thoughts is primarily a Western Christian phenomenon. Except for brief comments made by Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, a member of the émigré community in Paris, Orthodox feminists have largely ignored Bulgakov’s theology.

192

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

Based on these reasons, the second part of this chapter is divided into two main sections. Section one will apply feminist theory to Bulgakov’s Mariology. Because Elizabeth Johnson’s Truly Our Sister3 provides the most detailed criticisms of the mariological heritage from a feminist perspective, she will be the main source that I will use in my discussion. Based on her main criticisms of traditional mariologies, I will evaluate Bulgakov’s biblical hermeneutic, idealization of Mary, and dualist anthropology. Section two offers a brief comparative study between Bulgakov and Behr-Sigel. The section will help highlight Bulgakov’s mixed reception in his émigré community, but also illustrate points of convergence between his thought and Orthodox feminism. In this way, Bulgakov’s Mariology may provide fertile ground for future Orthodox feminist studies.

Neo-patristic criticisms Orthodox method Scholars treat Georges Florovsky (1893–1979) as Bulgakov’s main adversary within the Paris émigré community.4 This is not an entirely unfounded caricature given the stark differences in method or vision of what constitutes Orthodox theology between Bulgakov and Florovsky. Florovsky viewed the Russian Religious Renaissance and Bulgakov, in particular, as an expression of all that had gone wrong with Russian Orthodoxy since the seventeenth century. Russian theology had become overly westernized and too influenced by modern German philosophy. His publications attempt to reset Russian theology, to return Orthodoxy to its roots in the Church Fathers. Florovsky argued that the animus that inspires Orthodox theology should not be the Orthodox Church’s contact with modernity but rather adopting the scheme of thought and existential attitude of the Church Fathers, and using the Fathers to meet the challenges of modernity. In this manner, all of what Florovsky writes is in some sense a critique of Bulgakov or at least the modern western animus that inspired Bulgakov’s thought. Although Bulgakov was well-versed in the Church Fathers and frequently uses the Fathers to justify his positions, Florovsky most likely thought that Bulgakov misused the Fathers, cherry-picking patristic quotations to fit his sophiological scheme of thought. I use the qualifier “most likely,” because Florovsky in his publications was reticent with regard to criticisms of Bulgakov.5 His criticisms of Bulgakov in his publications were limited to the Russian Sophiological and the Russian Religious Renaissance movement in general. Within Bulgakov’s lifetime, Bulgakov’s most outspoken, vociferous critic was Vladimir Lossky (1903–1958). Lossky initiated the so-called “Sophia Affair” inasmuch as he alerted the Metropolitan of Moscow to Bulgakov’s “heresy”6 that resulted in the condemnation of Bulgakov’s theology by the Metropolitan of Moscow. More importantly, he published and disseminated a pamphlet, Spor o Sofii (Controversy over Sophia), that systematically rejected Bulgakov’s theology

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

193

as dangerous and heretical7 and published his most influential work and standard introduction to Orthodox theology, Essai sur la Théologie Mystique de L’ Église d’Orient that presents Orthodox theology in contrast to Sophiology.8 Nevertheless, although Lossky remained openly hostile to Bulgakov’s Sophiology throughout his career,9 Lossky and Bulgakov eventually reconciled. Interestingly, toward the end of Lossky’s life, he planned to make a thorough study of Bulgakov’s Sophiology that would convey Bulgakov’s unique insights from a traditional Orthodox perspective.10 Unfortunately, he died before he had the opportunity to write it. As opposed to Lossky’s public opposition to Bulgakov, Florovsky went to great lengths to avoid any direct condemnation of Bulgakov.11 Florovsky had a profound affection for Bulgakov and even attempted to avoid involving himself in the Sophia Affair. This was no doubt influenced by the fact that Bulgakov invited Florovsky to teach at San Serge and that Bulgakov considered Florovsky, his “spiritual son.”12 Florovsky only begrudgingly played a role in the Sophia Affair13 – he was compelled to take part in the writing of the minority report that ultimately rejected Bulgakov’s thought. Most likely Florovsky suspected that Metropolitan Sergius’s 24 August 1935 Decree that condemned Bulgakov’s thought as heretical was politically motivated. It was well-known within the émigré community that Metropolitan Sergius had grievances with Metropolitan Evlogy, who at this junction in time had broken ties with Moscow. Condemnation of Metropolitan Evlogy’s famed theologian, Sergius Bulgakov, provided an opportunity to exercise ecclesiastical authority as well as discredit Metropolitan Evlogy, whose jurisdiction included the Russian émigré churches.14 Nevertheless, Florovsky’s reticence to reject and personal affection for Bulgakov should not be mistaken for agreement with Bulgakov. Florovsky’s neo-patristic theology and method are at odds with Sophiology, as they have not only different starting points but different methodologies.15 Florovsky in his Ways of Russian Theology makes this explicit, and he rejects Sophiology as too speculative and influenced by the Western thought.16 The main issue is methodology; the sophiologists indulge in abstraction, which is not appropriate for an Orthodox theologian.17 For Florovsky, the gold standard for Christian theology is the theological method and teachings of the Greek Church Fathers. Particularly, the Church Fathers frame the theological discussion: they set the tone as well as the limitation for theological discussion that Orthodox theologians must respect. On this point, Lossky concurred with Florovsky; however, Lossky rejects Bulgakov’s theological system because it fails to respect the apophatism of the Fathers.18 Moreover, Bulgakov does not approach the Church Fathers with a patristic mindset. He ignores the patristic framework for theology and appropriates Soloviev and other German idelaists, such as Schelling. The criticism continues that Bulgakov rejects the consensus of the Fathers and stresses Fathers like the Syrian bishop, St. Aphraates, who has a relatively minor significance in

194

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

Orthodoxy.19 Lossky argued that Bulgakov’s usage of the Fathers is arbitrary, and selective in as much as he chooses Fathers or particular sayings of the Fathers that suits Bulgakov’s aims. The clearest example of this is Bulgakov’s application of Sophia to all three persons of the Trinity that neglects that the dominant patristic tradition that the second person of the Trinity is Sophia (i.e., St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa to name a few Fathers, all agree that the Jesus Christ is the divine Sophia). Bulgakov was well-aware of this tradition, and in fact, does not deny it but rather expands this tradition by appropriating an ontological significance to the divine Sophia. However, the fact that Bulgakov had the audacity to expand patristic Sophiology is precisely the problem that Lossky has with Bulgakov. Bulgakov is a great speculative theologian, but his theology is not Orthodox theology. Bulgakov fundamentally misconstrues the Orthodox tradition because the principle that orders his theology is Sophiology as opposed to apophatism. The result is that Bulgakov produces a superficially Orthodox theology or theology that uses Orthodox sources and claims to be within the Orthodox tradition, but it is nothing of the sort. For this reason, Lossky ultimately condemns Sophiology as heresy. Bulgakov’s incorrect principle of order results in a Mariology that is too preoccupied with Mary’s femininity and relationship with the Holy Spirit rather than Mary’s place and meaning within the Orthodox tradition. Apophatism is the principle that should order Orthodox theology and it is a mindset or attitude toward theology, which Bulgakov lacked,20 as he was too concerned with logical abstractions, rather than the direct experience of Godself or, in this context the relationship of Mary to the Orthodox Christian.21 This nuanced approach to theology means that there are limits to theological discourse. For instance, theology should not pursue knowledge about God for the sake of pursuing knowledge about God; moreover, a theologian should not presume that he/she can achieve a rational comprehension of God since knowledge of God is ultimately a mystical experience that is gifted from God. Lossky’ s apophatic theological method “forbids us to follow natural ways of thought and to form concepts which would usurp the place of spiritual realities.”22 Orthodoxy is not mystical escapism, but rather a limited engagement with the modern world. Faithfulness to the methods and thoughts of the entire body of Orthodox Church teachings delimit the appropriation of modern thoughts and methods.23 For these reasons, Bulgakov’s pneumatology poses a major problem for Lossky. First, Bulgakov’s undue stress on the relationship of the Holy Spirit to Mary neglects the Holy Spirit’s relationship to Jesus Christ. A case in point is Bulgakov’s title “Spirit-bearer.” Bulgakov proclaims that Mary is the “Spirit-bearer”; however, he insufficiently develops the tradition that Christ is the “Spirit-bearer.” Moreover, Bulgakov overly stresses sexuality or gender as an interpretative principle for the Holy Spirit.24 This idea is evident in minor Church Fathers; however, Bulgakov ignores what Lossky

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

195

deemed the patristic consensus that not only ignores gender but does not anthropomorphize God. The consensus of Church Fathers did not use gender as a central interpreting tool for either the Holy Spirit or Mary.25 Lossky goes on to diagnose Bulgakov’s heresy as unbridled speculations which are the product of Bulgakov’s appropriation of ideas from the Russian Religious Renaissance into his theology.26 This is another problem: theology should not be in the business of doing new things but rather bringing new things into dialogue with the ancient. According to Lossky, Orthodox theology involves a dialectic between “revolutionary innovators” and “conservative formalists.” As an apophatic theology, for Lossky, Orthodoxy represents a middle way: it neither simply restates old axioms nor speculates for the sake of speculation.27 However, Bulgakov ignores this dialectic and the “middle way,” leaning too far toward “revolutionary innovation.”28 Lossky’s explanation about how to write Orthodox theology is evident in Lossky’s Mariology. We can speak meaningfully about Mary, but we must maintain a fair-minded approach that is willing to give room to mystery. He develops his apophatic Mariology in his articles, “The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception” and “Panagia.” What is fascinating is that Lossky’s conclusions share numerous similarities with Bulgakov’s Mariology. Similar to Bulgakov, Lossky argues that humanity is fully realized in Mary and Jesus, and that Mary’s holiness is a result of her placement in history at the summit of the Old Testament.29 On this latter point, Lossky argues that Mary’s holiness is not merely her accomplishment but also the accomplishment of her spiritual mothers and fathers.30 Lossky writes the “sanctity of the Old Testament that had been accumulated from generation to generation, to culminate in the person of the all-pure Virgin Mary.”31 Mary is, therefore, “the last step that, on the human side” that made salvation possible.32 Lossky bases his reflection on St. Gregory Palamas, who taught that Mary’s holiness was a result of the successive purifications of Mary’s ancestors.33 Lossky arrives at the same conclusion as Bulgakov, that Mary is “kept from all taint of sin without any impairment to her liberty,”34 circumventing the contentious dogma of the Immaculate Conception.35 Like Bulgakov, he concludes that even though the original sin affects Mary in so far as she shares the responsibility of sin, the effect of the original sin is neutralized, helping her live out personal sinlessness.36 Thus, Mary is truly the “Panagia,” the all-holy woman who is without personal sin. The similarities do not stop here, Lossky, like Bulgakov, treats Mary as a type of Church.37 For Lossky and Bulgakov, Mary is the Church realized: she is the all-Holy created being fully realizing “in her consciousness all the import of the Incarnation of the Word, including the fact of her own divine maternity.”38 Again similar to Bulgakov, Lossky stresses that she is “the holiness of the Church,”39 and she exists at the “supreme transition” of the creation; she is the eschaton realized, fully deified and assumed body and soul into heaven, participating in the glory of her Son.40 For this reason, Lossky refers to Mary as the mystical center of the Church that is beyond

196

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

the Resurrection and final judgment.41 The uniqueness of her position is precisely what makes Mary so important to the Christian tradition, for she is the only deified/resurrected human hypostasis, and as such she is the object of hope for all Christians42 because Mary is an example of what we shall become after the General Resurrection. However, in contradistinction to Bulgakov, who attributes a form of shared-headship with Christ to Mary evident in his doctrine that Mary is the pneumatophoric hypostasis, Lossky is quick to stress that Christ is the head of the Church and the new humanity, not Mary. Lossky clearly circumscribes his reflections on Mary within a christological context. In so doing he arrives at original insights, including his christological interpretation of Mary’s appearance at Lourdes, France.43 Also, Lossky’s apophatic method is evident in his reservations about theologizing about Mary. Thus, he does not author a systematic Mariology, but rather limits his ideas to the refutation of errors (e.g., the Immaculate Conception and Pius IX’s interpretation of Lourdes) and refuses to theologize about mysteries of Mary’s Dormition and Glorification. Reminiscent of his apophatism, Lossky says, “[l]et us therefore keep silence, and let us not try to dogmatize about the supreme glory of the Mother of God.”44 Although these teachings are apparent to an Orthodox believer, they are intentionally shrouded in a margin of silence that must be respected.45 In other places Lossky refers to these teaching as the unwritten tradition or the mysteries of the Church.46 As opposed to written tradition, (e.g., the Scriptures and the writings of the Church Fathers), unwritten traditions are teachings that are relevant only to the Orthodox believer; they are not for public preaching. Written tradition is the content of preaching, evangelization, and the central truths of the faith that all people should know. However, not all of the tradition should be publicly taught, for much of the tradition of the Church precludes rational discourse and is perceptible only to the mystical experience of a believer. The firm belief in Mary’s Resurrection and Mary’s role in the salvation of humankind are examples of these mystical traditions, as for Lossky, all Orthodox Christians believe these doctrines even though it is no defined as a dogma. Nevertheless, unwritten tradition is a part of the deposit of faith that is taught to a believer, but there is no way to understand it. Rather they point us to “the foundation of our hope, a fruit of faith, ripened in tradition.”47 Lossky finds confirmation of his position in the Church’s several centuries of silence on the Dormition of Mary.48 Quoting St. Basil, Lossky writes, it was an unpublishable and ineffable teaching, which was preserved by our fathers in silence, so as to be inaccessible to all curiosity or indiscretion, for they had been healthily instructed how to protect, by silence, the holiness of the mystery.49 But this is where Bulgakov’s theology goes astray, as he fails to give room in his thought to the place of mystery that was so highly esteemed in the

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

197

greatest of the Church Fathers as well as contemporary Orthodox believers. Moreover, Lossky’s Mariology provides insight as to why Lossky’s response to Bulgakov was volatile: Lossky believed that not only are the uninitiated unable to understand the Marian teachings, but it is imprudent for theologians to speak publically about unwritten tradition; doing this may prove detrimental to the spiritual welfare of non-Orthodox persons. Since these teachings on Mary are only accessible through experience, for those who have received the Holy Spirit, it will be impossible for a catechumen or non-Orthodox to perceive these truths. Any attempt to preach about the unwritten traditions that are perceptible to Orthodox religious intuition will result in rationalistic distortions. His pastoral concern is based on his fear that one will inspect what is contained in these teachings, and after failing to comprehend this teaching, disregard or lose their veneration of Mary or faith in Jesus Christ.50 Nevertheless, recent historical scholarship casts doubt on Lossky’s interpretation of the Orthodox teaching on Mary as largely an unwritten tradition that was kept in prudent silence by the consensus of the Fathers. We are aware of a variety of apocryphal works such as De transitu Virginis Mariae by pseudo-Melito of Sardis and the proto-evangelium of James, that speak in-depth about Mary’s life. However, Lossky explains that these works do not represent the Orthodox tradition, for they “often alluded imprudently to mysteries about which the Church had maintained a prudent silence.”51 Lossky is correct that the Orthodox Church has never accepted the either of these works as authoritative. However, Lossky does not take into serious consideration the robust theological treatments and apocryphal stories that the Orthodox Church has produced throughout the past two millennia.52 For instance, Maximus the Confessor’s work Life of the Virgin53 inspired a variety of mariological works in the Orthodox world.54 Moreover, Lossky fails to take into consideration the influence of the works on popular Orthodox piety and liturgical worship. Lossky viewed the liturgy as important but in no way gives it the authority that we find in Bulgakov. As I demonstrated in previous chapters, the divine liturgy is a source for Bulgakov’s theology. In the images and hymns of the liturgy reveal a robust Mariology, which Bulgakov sought to articulate. But this is precisely where we find a divergence in methodology. For Lossky the truths evident in the mystical life of the Church that is experienced in the divine liturgy, the meeting place between heaven and earth, are truths that preclude dogmatization and it is best to be silent about. However, for Bulgakov, the liturgy should be the source of theology and therefore explicated by the theologian. Given Lossky’s theological methodology, the apophatic principle that orders his theology, and his hesitation to theologize about the Mother of God and Orthodox devotion to her, it is not surprising that Lossky was grievously offended by Bulgakov’s The Burning Bush. Bulgakov’s conclusions that I have outlined in Chapter 5, albeit based on the Orthodox liturgy and tradition, speak about that which he should have remained

198

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

silent.55 What we find here, again, are two different mindsets. As Tataryn, taking a cue from Bernard Lonergan, perceptively noted Bulgakov is a “historically minded” theologian, and his attention to history and the development of Orthodox teaching as well as the speculative methods of many Church Fathers like Gregory of Nyssa, vindicate his system. It frees Bulgakov up to push theology beyond the Church Fathers. The Church Fathers are important but, for Bulgakov, they do not exhaust theology and should not limit theology. Patristic theology, albeit an important epic in the life of the Orthodox Church, does not exhaust Orthodox theology. The Church Fathers are not always consistent and represent a myriad of saints articulating the life of the Orthodox Church. Orthodox thought must show continuity with the Church Fathers but should not be restrained by them. Lossky and Florovsky, on the other hand, were much more classically minded Orthodox theologians that propose that not only theology is circumscribed by the Fathers, but theologians must acquire the patristic mindset.56 Thus for Lossky, Bulgakov’s failure to acquire an Orthodox, Patristic, and apophatic mindset provides Bulgakov with a faulty method and principle ordering his theology. This inability to theologize like the Fathers must have been evident for Florovsky as well.57 Florovsky is clear that Mariology must be subsumed within Christology58 Mary should not be the subject of a treatise.59 This is also why in Orthodoxy there are no mariologists or tradition dedicated to Mariology or Marian Studies (for politically correct Catholics). There is hesitation to theologize about Mary outside of her relationship with Jesus Christ. Lossky attempts to demonstrate that Bulgakov failed to acquire the mind of the Fathers. He argues, for instance, that Bulgakov uses analogies improperly. According to Lossky, analogies are useful for practical theology, (i.e., giving examples to help illustrate a point) but not dogmatic theology. Lossky gives the example of St. Photius who uses the analogy of the human family to clarify the procession of the Holy Spirit. However, he notes St. Photius does not use this analogy as the basis for his argument that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Analogies should not be used as a theological axiom. Lossky argues, in effect, that Bulgakov’s pneumatology, Christian anthropology, and Mariology are erroneous because they are based on a “narrow spiritual analogy” that attributes gender to the divine Son and Holy Spirit. The gender analogy cannot be axiomatic because God is ultimately more dislike than like humankind. Bulgakov’s approach, however, is more nuanced than this, in so far as he will argue that the Son and the Holy Spirit do not have gender, but that their activity in the life of the Trinity and economy of salvation is the basis of human gender.60 For Lossky, Bulgakov’s usage of analogies as axioms also illustrates how Bulgakov’s system is arbitrary. This is the second problem with basing doctrine on an analogy. For it is simply perchance that we choose gender: any category that differentiates Mary from Jesus could also be appropriated. Lossky’s point is that theological systems must be based on revelation

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

199

evident in the Scriptures or the consensus of the Fathers, never a personal preference. Again, Bulgakov’s theology is arbitrary, and it is simply speculation for the sake of speculating, not Orthodox theology. Nevertheless, although we cannot downplay the influence of nonOrthodox sources on Bulgakov (i.e., the Russian Religious Renaissance’s preoccupation with sexuality — see Chapter 4), Bulgakov makes gender an important category for his theological anthropology and the economy of salvation because gender is associated with God’s image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:27).61 From Bulgakov’s perspective, the good reason for making gender axiomatic is the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis, which defines humankind as male and female. However, his modernism and lack of concern to be faithful to the Fathers are clear: the experience of gender and secular studies on gender inform his theology of the divine dyad and Mary.

Lossky’s criticism of Bulgakov’s teaching In Lossky’s pamphlet Spor o Sofii, Lossky engages Bulgakov’s Mariology and pneumatology specifically. In this text, Lossky notes that attributing femininity to the Holy Spirit and by consequence to Mary is problematic since femininity connotes passivity. To the contrary, Sacred Scripture and tradition reveal that the Holy Spirit is an active hypostasis: the Holy Spirit inspires the prophets, operates in the sacraments, and perfects the activities of Christ.62 The Holy Spirit inspires the prophets, the apostles, and the saints to action. Although Lossky mentions this critique in passing, he addresses a valid point, namely that feminine passivity does not exhaust the Holy Spirit’s action in salvation history. Unfortunately, Lossky’s presentation is schematic and fails to dialogue with Bulgakov on Bulgakov’s terminology. Lossky accurately observed that Bulgakov appropriates feminine activity to the Holy Spirit. However, Bulgakov is clear that not only is “feminine activity” an equivocal phrase that refers to passivity and passiveactivity, but also that he is using it analogically. Bulgakov rejected as an anthropomorphism the idea that the Holy Spirit is the feminine principle in God.63 Bulgakov writes in his The Bride of the Lamb, “with reference to man [humankind], the qualities of the Second and Third Hypostasis correspond to, are analogous to, are parallel to (but by no means identical to the male and female principles in it).”64 Lossky ignores the nuances in Bulgakov’s thought. Lossky’s criticism continues. He argues that Bulgakov’s gender essentialism that is based on the activity of the Son and the Holy Spirit is irrelevant. It is a “rash syntheses” because Bulgakov’s stress on gender as an interpretive principle is arbitrary and has a little precedent in the writings of the Church Fathers. Lossky rejects Bulgakov’s essentialist reading of Genesis 1:27 and concludes that the male hypostasis is created in the image of the Son and that the female hypostasis is created in the image of the Holy Spirit. The upshot of this is that Christ (the male hypostasis) and Mary (the female

200

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

hypostasis) are the fullest creaturely manifestations of the image of God. In Bulgakov’s account, according to Lossky, Mary gives to Christ what Christ lacked, femininity.65 According to Lossky, these are irresponsible and arbitrary speculations. Lossky suggests that Bulgakov is not faithful to the Orthodox tradition regarding his theology of the image of God. Gender was not an important part of the Church father’s theology of the image of God. However, the dominant patristic traditions locate the image of God in humankind in the “intellect” or the body-soul composite. Today, the latter interpretation is favored.66 Gregory Palamas, a favorite Church father of both Lossky and Bulgakov, wrote that “‘the word man means neither the soul by itself nor the body by itself, but the two together.”67 Lossky’s point is that Bulgakov ignores the dominant patristic interpretation of Genesis 1:27, and Bulgakov’s preference for gender as the image of the image of God is based on personal preference. Personal taste does not represent the Orthodox tradition. However, as Sauvé notes this issue of gender in relation to being made in the image of God caused Lossky “cognitive dissonance,” which Lossky overcomes over time.68 Early in his career, Lossky followed Maximus the Confessor and Gregory of Nyssa explanation of why gender exists, arguing that the differentiation of the sexes was due to God’s prevision of the original sin.69 Lossky explicates this point in his The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.70 Ultimately, Lossky will argue that the image of God in humankind cannot be clearly defined. Elucidating a clear definition is frustrated by the facts that “true condition” of humankind before the original sin is a mystery; moreover, to be in the image of God refers not simply to an individual human hypostasis but the entire human nature. Humanity in its entirety is made in the image of the image of God, not simply a person or aspect of a human person. What this ultimately means will not be clear until humankind is divinized. Lossky’s apophatic treatment of the image of God places little importance on gender. For Lossky, Bulgakov does not simply miss the mark but overly simplifies the mystery of humankind’s existence.71 Interestingly, later in Lossky’s career, Lossky will share Bulgakov’s insights and concerns. Lossky, in fact, in his Orthodox Church, which was written several decades after Bulgakov’s death, rejects Nyssa’s argument72 and explains the differentiation of the sexes in a Bulgakovian manner.73 Lossky argues that the sexual differentiation refers to being made in the image of God, namely that humankind was created as singular and plural as a reflection of the singularity and plurality of the image of God, the Trinity. Lossky writes: Thus the mystery of the singular and plural in man reflects the mystery of the singular and plural in God: in the same way that the personal principle in God demands that the one nature express itself in a diversity of persons, likewise in man created in the image of God.74 (emphasis added)

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

201

Here we find a clear allusion to Bulgakov’s thought, and Sauvé argues that Lossky borrowed his ideas directly from Bulgakov.75 The gender distinction of the male person and female person, who are united in one human nature, refers analogically to the Trinity. Moreover, echoing Bulgakov’s teaching, Lossky argues that sin destroys the original unity of Adam and Eve creating individuals with two separate natures.76 Thus, the task of humankind is to reunite the sexes. However, what exactly this means is left ambiguous by Lossky. Lossky continues that Bulgakov’s teaching on the relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit before Pentecost is problematic. If Mary was deified at the Annunciation, then there would have been no need for the Incarnation.77 Unfortunately, Lossky fails to carefully read what Bulgakov says on this point. Without repeating Bulgakov’s argument in detail elucidated in the previous chapter, it is important to note that Bulgakov contends that the fullness of Mary’s deification does not occur until the Pentecost – however, she does not experience the consequence of this encounter with the Holy Spirit fully until she has experienced death and glorification. Before the Pentecost, Mary has a unique relationship with the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation, but she does not receive the grace of salvation before Christ’s Resurrection. Lossky’s most pressing criticism is Bulgakov’s confusion of hypostasis and nature.78 He notes that gender and sex are functions of nature, not hypostasis, and thus to attribute gender to a hypostasis is to confuse nature with hypostasis.79 This is again an attack on Bulgakov’s gender essentialism that gives a foremost importance to Mary because she lives out and allows Christ to incorporate femininity into the Incarnation. Thus, to appropriate masculinity to the Son and femininity to the Holy Spirit and their creaturely corollaries, Jesus and Mary, is unfounded since Bulgakov confuses his terms: Bulgakov treats gender as a characteristic of nature; however, gender is a hypostatic characteristic. Again, there is no attempt by Lossky to dialogue with Bulgakov on Bulgakov’s terms. As I iterated in Chapter 4, following from his trinitarian treatment of the image of God, Bulgakov treats gender as both an essential and hypostatic term. The dominant gender principle in a hypostasis’s nature determines the gender of that hypostasis. To complicate matters, what makes the gender principle dominant is precisely the engendered hypostasis. Thus, male hypostases are born with a predisposition toward truth (the male principle), albeit containing beauty (the female principle), and female hypostases are born with a predisposition toward beauty (the female principle), albeit containing truth (the male principle).80 However, in defense of Lossky, Bulgakov’s sophiological works do not state this with clarity. The difficulty is, of course, if gender is a descriptive for personal action/intuition, in what sense can it also be an essential category? It is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve terminological clarity as to what differentiates hypostasis from nature. However, Bulgakov is quite content with this ambiguity because to be an image of the image of God is to be an

202

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

image of the Trinity, which is a mystery. It should not be surprising that the human gender is a mystery, precluding rationalization.

St. John Maximovitch’s critique Two months after Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow condemned Bulgakov’s thought, the Karlovtsy Synod (ROCOR) condemned Bulgakov’s theology as heresy. According to George Grabbe, this position was reached in part by arguments by John Maximovitch (1896–1966),81 who at this time was the bishop of Shanghai.82 Maximovitch argued that Bulgakov’s Sophiology was heresy, and therefore it must be clearly and concisely rejected.83 His evaluation of Bulgakov’s Mariology occurs in his short treatise, The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God (1933).84 This book provides a concise overview of Orthodox teaching on Mary, and it is polemical in tone.85 Five chapters of his book address various Mariological heresies that dishonor Mary. The final heresy that St. John addresses is the heresy of Sergius Bulgakov “who for the time being, belongs to the Orthodox Church.”86 John Maximovitch shares the concerns of Florovsky and Lossky that Bulgakov “glorifies [Mary] beyond what is proper,” for “[t]ruth is foreign to all overstatements.”87 Bulgakov’s error in this respect leads him into the error of Roman Catholic Mariology. According to Maximovitch, Bulgakov, in fact, surpasses the Catholic theology in its excesses, because Bulgakov identifies Mary with the Holy Spirit.88 For instance, the titles Immaculate Conception and co-Redemptrix are overstatements made by the Catholic magisterium; however, Catholic theology circumscribes Mary within creation. On the other hand, Bulgakov proposes Mariolatry: Mary achieves “equality with God.”89 This is a sacrilegious overstatement unsupported by Scripture and tradition.90 Bulgakov’s deep love and appreciation for Mary results in a “senseless praise” that blasphemes Mary because he attributes to Mary what Mary would never attribute to herself, divinity.91 Ultimately, Maximovitch makes an ad hominem argument, suggesting that Bulgakov’s claims are a result of his “vain deceit” and penchant for philosophical clarity that results in the rejection of Orthodox theology.92 Maximovitch’s criticisms are the most bombastic among the Russians discussed in this chapter, but his criticisms lack substance. He argues without substantiation that Bulgakov places Mary within the life of the Blessed Trinity. Bulgakov is much more careful and nuanced in his approach to the relationship of Mary to the Holy Spirit than Maximovitch suggests. For Bulgakov, the sophiological antimony is central to the integrity of the createdness of creation. Thus, it is the context of any statement he makes about the Mother of God. Mary never loses her createdness; Bulgakov is well aware that to take up this line of thought would do a disservice to the Mary, in as much as becoming God, she would cease to be human, but also make salvation history ultimately arbitrary. It would suggest that the goal of humankind is to become God, pantheism. Bulgakov rejected this idea in

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

203

his religious, philosophical works but also in his theology. Nevertheless, as mentioned in the previous chapter, Mary’s relationship with the Holy Spirit exhibits what it means to be in a relationship with the Holy Spirit. There is little doubt that Maximovitch would find this explanation any more acceptable since it is not a perspective evidenced by the consensus of the Fathers.

Bulgakov and feminism Feminist evaluation of Bulgakov While Bulgakov did not explicitly reflect on or make use of feminist theory, feminists have appropriated many of his insights into their thought.93 In his lifetime, Bulgakov inspired women to take active roles in society and the Church. (Elisabeth Behr-Sigel notes that, in 1929, she took Bulgakov’s advice to serve as the preacher and exercise pastoral ministries at a local Reformed Church.94) Moreover, Bulgakov’s thought is attractive to some feminists because of his definition of God as Sophia reifies the feminine gender. Feminine language about God, especially within a maternal context, is relevant and meaningful. Since God is Sophia, the traditional patriarchal notion of God is not the dominant idea in his theology. Nonetheless, he incorporates a traditional Orthodox understanding of gender (e.g., masculinely is activity and feminine is passivity) into his thought. Even though Bulgakov argues that every man and woman contain both sexual principles and does not “depersonalize real women” or “deny female sexuality by exalting the Madonna over the Whore,”95 Bulgakov clearly distinguishes between sexes on the basis of gender, and moreover, warns against overly theologizing about gender because gender is based on a mystery.96 He is not a liberation theologian, and he does not stress the liberating implications of spiritual bisexuality or his understanding of femininity. This is evident in his incorporation of stereotypical definitions of the sexes that produce problematic claims for feminist readers. For instance, he writes In man, a clear distinction is established between male and female, expressed in the fact that the female was made out of one of the male’s ribs (not directly out of the dust of the earth) and, in general, in the fact that the male plays the dominant role, since he bears the image of the demiurgic hypostasis, the Logos.97 Undoubtedly. feminist theologians will scoff at this statement since it explicitly advocates the secondary status of women, for men not only occupy the “dominant role” but bear the image of the Logos, the Creator, and Savior of the world. The feminist theological movement seeks to liberate women from oppressive structures and ideas that relegated women to a secondary status. Moreover, by associating Christ with male persons, Bulgakov incipiently appropriates all that is associated with maleness (imperialism and

204

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

patriarchy) into Christian theology.98 However, as Celia Dean-Drummond observed, Bulgakov qualifies the maleness of Christ with his stress that Christ’s humanity is inclusive of both genders.99 Bulgakov interprets Galatians 3:28 that in Jesus Christ there “is neither male nor female” as a confirmation of his gender essentialism. Ultimately, the hierarchy of the sexes has a typological function that neatly comports to his dyadic theology of the Son and Holy Spirit. As the male is created first and the female second, so also Christ as the content of the Father that is the first actor in the economy of salvation, and the Holy Spirit as the actualization of this content is the second actor in the economy of salvation.100 However, the dominant role that the male plays in his theology as a symbol for the Son does not translate into misogyny. It is curtailed by Bulgakov’s overly pneumatological interpretation of discipleship that emphasizes the feminine principle and activity necessary for following Jesus Christ. On the Mother of God, his pneumatology and stress on Mary’s unique relationship with the Holy Spirit liberate Mary, as she is not merely an archetypical woman or submissive, but rather a perfectly righteous woman, whose lifetime of faith is an archetype for all Christians to emulate. Thus, Bulgakov does not stress Mary’s role vis-a-vis women, which might be expected in his dualistic account of the sexes/gender that treats Christ as the archetype of males and the Holy Spirit as the archetype of females.101 Rather Mary’s unique relationship with the Holy Spirit is inclusive and invites all people to embrace and accept the Holy Spirit. Situating Mary within a pneumatological context is beneficial because, as Elizabeth Johnson argues, it “points to the graced existence of all believers.”102 There are ample convergences with feminist theologians when the pneumatological context of Bulgakov’s Mariology is taken into consideration. Nevertheless, Bulgakov’s biblical hermeneutic that is not sensitive to the experience of women, his idealization of Mary, and dualistic anthropology hampers a dialogue between his Sophiology and feminism. Critique one: idealization of Mary Although Bulgakov stresses Mary’s freedom and personal expression, he nonetheless idealizes her. Mary is clearly the archetypical disciple. However, this is an important nuance in his thought: Mary is not the archetype for women but all people, and for this reason through the power of the Holy Spirit, she intercedes on behalf of all individuals. Mary demonstrates the perfect feminine response that all disciples are called to live out but also actualizes the Incarnation and Paschal Mystery. Bulgakov is clear that Mary with Christ is the fullness of the image of God revealed.103 Nevertheless, for theologians like Johnson, this is a problem since idealizations of Mary are dangerous to women for two reasons. First, rather than honoring Mary, idealizations have the effect of stripping Mary of her history, voice, and prophetic accomplishment. Second, Mary’s idealization has the effect of

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

205

marginalizing women because their life and experience are only relevant in as much as they are consistent with Mary’s experience.104 Johnson, on the contrary, argues that Mary is first and foremost a historical woman, and her accomplishments in history must be respected. For Johnson, by focusing on the historical Mary’s unique voice, we make room for our unique voices and accomplishments. A superficial analysis of Bulgakov’s Mariology will undoubtedly comport to the idealistic mariologies that Johnson rejected, for Bulgakov makes little attempt to reconstruct the historical Mary. Nevertheless, Bulgakov’s Mariology does not fit neatly into any of the problematic Mariologies that Johnson has in mind. Although Bulgakov idealizes Mary, he is concerned with recovering the prophetic and creative voice of the Mother of God. This element in his thought produces a Mariology that is more congruent with feminist theory. Bulgakov’s stress on Mary’s voice is motivated by his polemic with Catholic Mariology, in particular, the Catholic stress on Marian privileges (i.e., the Immaculate Conception). Recall that according to Bulgakov one of the biggest problems with Catholic Mariology is that it fails to illustrate the divine-human synergy present in Mary’s life, namely her personal, creative and prophetic accomplishment. Mary is the greatest disciple not because of a privilege that God bestowed upon her, but rather because of her perfect and complete actualization of God’s will for her in her life. In so doing, Bulgakov circumvents the Catholic tradition of appropriating privileges to Mary that could be a boon for feminist reappraisals of the Marian tradition. Bulgakov avoids “privilege talk” that perpetuates the second-class status of women because “by making Mary the exception rather than the type, these doctrines, as we have seen, subtly disparage women’s sexuality, holiness, and independence.”105 Using Johnson’s terminology, Mary, in Bulgakov’s thought, is a type of disciple, rather than the exception among the disciples. This nuance is important because it places Mary’s personal accomplishment squarely within human history.106 The upshot is that Mary’s experience provides a road map for what discipleship entails. This of course includes the cross-bearing ministry of the Mother of God and the requisite passive fiat for salvation, adoption by the Holy Spirit, but also to act heroically like Mary: to respond to God’s offer of salvation positively amid our shared infirm nature (for Bulgakov, Mary had an infirm nature prone to sin even though she never actualized sin). The result in highlighting Mary’s personal accomplishment vis-à-vis discipleship is to make “a strength out of qualities construed by the dominant group as the deficiencies or less valued complementarities of ‘the other.’”107 Although Bulgakov does not focus on Mary’s liberating role in any meaningful way, his stress on Mary’s motherhood and femininity, which in traditional androcentric discourse has been construed as weaknesses, become a strength not only evidenced in Mary’s discipleship but also for all Christian disciples. The result is that the female expression of motherhood is

206

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

a dominant metaphor for the experience of Christians. Similar to Mary’s heroic faith, Christians are called to give birth to Christ through humbly, femininely, and passive-actively allowing the Holy Spirit to lead us to the Father’s will. Bulgakov’s account of Mary complements Johnson and other feminist accounts of Mary that neglect Mary’s role in the life of the Church and experience intrinsic to Orthodox and Catholic religious experience that Mary is alive in heaven, advocating for the salvation of humankind. In Bulgakov’s thought, what we discover is an antinomy between Mary as the idealized disciple and Mary as a member of the communion of the saints that prompts us to respond to the Gospel. Like the other antinomies of faith, to maintain the antinomy, both premises must be maintained: if we drop the idealization and focus solely on Mary’s experience between the Annunciation and Assumption, what results is a faith other than the faith of the Orthodox Christian tradition that stresses the role of Mary as intercessor in heaven, and if we stress the idealization solely, then the human experience of Mary becomes irrelevant, which also does a disservice to Orthodoxy because it minimizes Mary’s autonomy. For Orthodox believers, Mary, who is their mother in heaven, the model and perfect expression of motherhood, cannot remain in heaven aloof to the struggles and plight of her children; rather she is in solidarity with us. However, this is made possible through the life-saving hypostasis, the Holy Spirit. Mary in conjunction with the Holy Spirit, as the penuematophoric hypostasis, inspires us to give birth to Christ in all our thoughts, words, and deeds. Even though Bulgakov’s Mariology tends toward idealization, he does not silence women. As opposed to silencing the voice and experience of women, Mary provides a space for females to prophetically and creatively giving their fiat to God. Ultimately joining Mary in her fiat and working toward the salvation of the human race is circumscribed within the Holy Spirit’s economic mission. Thus, the invitation to join Mary in the choice to do the will of God is none other than to welcome the saving hypostasis into our lives, the Holy Spirit. His stress on Mary’s personal, creative, and prophetic self-accomplishment illustrates another important similarity between his methodology and feminist theory. Like feminist theory that approaches sources for theology inclusively, including stories of historical women, personal experiences, as well as Scripture and tradition, Bulgakov’s method is also inclusive and draws from a variety of sources for inspiration,108 it is “a theology of inclusive, continuing, open-ended revelation” that unfolds in the “wisdom of all human beings.”109 Personally and creatively actualizing revelation is a vital component of being a Christian disciple. For Bulgakov, creative action or to personally and intentionally seek to follow Christ had cosmological effects, perfecting the microcosm of the self includes perfecting the macrocosm.110 Bulgakov’s inclusive theology along with his stress on Mary’s role vis-à-vis discipleship leads me to believe that Bulgakov’s Mariology should be categorized as what Johnson describes as a communion model. This is opposed to

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

207

a patronage model whereby Mary stands as a patron between humankind and God, giving us gifts of grace in exchange for our prayers, which imports medieval notions of repayment the economy of salvation. Mary stands as one completely redeemed within the communion of the saints in solidarity with us. However, again this is not to deny who she is, a Mother who loves her children dearly. If Sophiology is an excursus on what it means to say “God is Love” (1 John 4:8), then Mary is the culmination of this excursus. She is the outcome but also the perfect response to divine love. Therefore, the emphasis in Bulgakov’s thought is not on Mary’s prerogatives and what differentiates us from her or her from women, but rather that Mary is our hope realized! She is the realization of what God has “prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor 2:9) if we accept Christ as did Mary. His Mariology is, as I have expressed elsewhere, a “realized eschatology.” Nevertheless, unlike Johnson, who largely disregards the mariological tradition and the presence of Mary in the divine liturgy – which has the effect of marginalizing Eastern Orthodox Christians, who hold the liturgy in the highest esteem – Bulgakov’s theology is an exposition of the liturgy; it allows for an egalitarian understanding of Mary and the saints without jettisoning the faith of the Church.111 Perhaps his Mariology can offer a corrective to feminist studies of Mary that focus exclusively on the historical Mary and neglect the Mary of the living faith that has and continues to inspire countless persons to follow Jesus Christ. Critique two: dualistic anthropologies For Johnson, gender is an important part of who a person is, but it is not the exclusive part, nor should it function as an interpretive principle for human activity. Herein lies the problem with dualistic anthropologies: they constrain men and women to specified roles that do not represent reality.112 Moreover, they also create Christological problems since theologies that are overly concerned with gender dualism are forced to account for how the feminine/female is redeemed by the masculine/male Christ.113 Moreover, dualistic anthropologies perpetuate prejudice against women in so far as they rely on the logic that femininity and subordination are connected.114 The result is an unjust distribution of power and second-class or receptive status of women relative to the dominant and active status of men that results in classism, sexism, and distorted human psyches. Gender dualism is merely an obstacle toward achieving a liberating future for women. Related to dualistic anthropologies are “maternal face of God” mariolgoies, which use Mary as the means in which to supplement the overly male and patriarchal understanding of God. Mary embodies divine femininity. This is evidenced particularly in Latino mariologies that find in Mary the symbol or visible expression of the Holy Spirit. Orlando Espin and Leonardo Boff have taken up this argument. Leonardo Boff, particularly, argues that the Holy Spirit hypostatically assumes Mary’s femininity.115 In this way, the exalted

208

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

veneration of Mary and her feminine qualities are revelatory of the feminine in God. Johnson argues this kind of pneumatological Mariology is a dead end because it simply supplements an overarching male image of God with female imagery.116 Moreover, it is not good theology since appropriating gender to the Holy Spirit fails because God is simple, and therefore names, images, and symbols about God are only appropriate only if they are meant to evoke God’s unity and wholeness.117 Gender descriptions of God fail to take into account God’s simplicity. As mentioned, Bulgakov appropriates the patriarchal and androcentric understanding of gender into his anthropology.118 However, his treatment of the distinction of the sexes is nuanced; while the male principle is activity, the female is passive-activity. Moreover, his trinitarian account of the image of God leads him beyond a binary treatment of gender to argue that each hypostasis is both male and female in gender. Nonetheless, Bulgakov’s theology of gender is based almost exclusively on the Genesis narrative of creation, and thus he does not consider the sociological influences on the interpretation of gender/sex, which is problematic for a contemporary reader. Genesis 1:27 is the proof text that for Bulgakov justifies in his account of the dyadic interpretation of the missions of the Holy Spirit and the Son. We mentioned the difficulty with this line of thought above,119 and the Christological problem it creates, especially when we consider Bulgakov’s emphasis on the pure masculinity of Jesus. Nevertheless, his bisexual account of gender allows him to express the differences between the sexes without limiting men’s and women’s experience to one gender. In this respect, his thought has a liberating function since, at least in theory, it allows for diverse expressions of the gender.120 Men are not simply active and women passive because both men and women are bisexual (e.g., active and passive) in nature. Rather than removing from Mary the traditional veneration of her purity, unselfishness, and submissiveness, which Johnson does because she argues that they delimit women and serve to perpetuate patriarchy, Bulgakov universalizes these characteristics as traits appropriate to the expression of the spiritual life common to all men and women.121 The effect of this move is that Bulgakov can salvage this tradition from Johnson’s criticism without prejudicing women. Bulgakov’s approach provides an egalitarian anthropology, which, although it retains gender essentialist language, allows for the variations in human experience to be meaningful. For Bulgakov, Genesis 1:27 gives equality to men and women because they are equally created in the image of God.122 Because he stresses that Genesis 1:27 refers primarily to the sexual principles, male and female, that are shared by all people, the expression of the feminine principle is the expression of the human person.123 Spiritual bisexuality becomes a rallying cry or a “call to everyone to a new imagination, a new vision of interconnection, interrelation, and interdependence among all.”124 This is consistent with Bulgakov’s anthropology and theology of personhood that rejects individualism and consistently stresses that humankind is a trinitarian being,

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

209

who shares the same nature. His dynamic interpretation of a person as always in communion with other people precludes any form of prejudice or inequality.125 We find evidence of his inclusive anthropology in his theology of marriage. Although Bulgakov, following the Christian biblical tradition (e.g., Col 3:18; Ephesians 5: 22–33), argues that the husband is the head and the wife is the “help meet,” he defines their relationship in terms of spiritual eros.126 The headship of the husband has only a formal function; what is operative is the mutual and passionate love and support between the spouses that allows them to overcome lust together. How their sexual principles complement one another is not clear. However, Bulgakov defines sin as gender one-sidedness.127 Therefore, Satan is the archetype of “bad maleness,” which is an activity without humble receptivity to God’s will, and Lilith is the archetype of “bad femaleness,” which is seductive receptivity. Both of these sins are possibilities for men and women. Nevertheless, what follows is gender equality is not simply a theological expression of humankind, but also as our personal expression of what we are and who we are in relation to other people. To live out being made in the image of God, we must embrace not only the masculine and feminine aspect of ourselves, but also refrain from erasing the distinction between the sexes and prejudicial attitudes based on gender. What distinguishes the sexes beyond biology is a matter of a predisposition in their activity. Regarding Johnson’s criticism of pneumatological mariologies, Johnson is unable to account for Bulgakov’s highly specialized treatment of the Holy Spirit. Bulgakov makes no contention that God has gender. Rather what we experience as gender is based on the activity of Son and the Holy Spirit. His observations do not contradict the simplicity of God since his anthropology is rooted in the economic missions of the Son and Holy Spirit and does not import gender into the inner life of the Trinity. This being said, the hypostatic function of each person of the Trinity reveals itself in the economy of salvation. Gender identity from the vantage point of the Trinity is little more than an analogy for the mission of the revealing hypostases: God is neither male nor female, rather the male and female are the means God uses to reveal the difference and unity in the Trinity in God’s creation of humankind in the image of the image of God, particularly the hypostases who are active in creation, the Son, and Holy Spirit. Elisabeth Behr-Sigel and Sergius Bulgakov Elisabeth Behr-Sigel is widely regarded as the most influential feminist Orthodox theologian. Although earlier in her career she evaluates Bulgakov’s theology, she did so before she came to terms with the questions and methods of the feminist movement.128 Nevertheless, in her mature works, she notes the considerable influence Bulgakov had on her but also that Bulgakov mystifies women.129 However, she did not engage Bulgakov’s Mariology in a meaningful analysis.130

210

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

Nevertheless, Elisabeth Behr-Sigel offers an Orthodox treatment of Mary from a feminist perspective that is remarkably similar to Bulgakov’s Mariology. Her Mariology is a middle ground between the neo-patristic theologians and feminist theology. Behr-Sigel retains the gender binary and emphasizes that men and women are distinct. However, she stresses the “otherness” of men and women that cannot be limited to spiritual or psychological terms. She recognizes that there is something instinctual about the femininity of women and the masculinity of men, but this is not to be defined, and it is of little significance whether this “instinct innate or acquired under the influence of culture and education.”131 Nevertheless, she notes that “every human person is, in reality, a composite being having either a masculine or feminine dominance which has been more or less accentuated, formed or deformed by education and cultural influences.”132 Behr-Sigel espouses a form of spiritual bisexuality albeit cautious about defining personhood as sexuality. She writes that it is “dangerous to turn the masculine and the feminine principles into personal realities to the detriment of the basic category of person as the image of God in man.”133 Thus, she purposefully avoids defining what constitutes these sexual elements but emphasizes that men and women are distinct amid their shared bisexuality.134 Nonetheless, gender plays a major role in her reflection on Mary. However, like Bulgakov, Mary is the archetype for men and women. With Mary, men and women are called to give “a ‘feminine’ attitude of welcoming grace, of giving and offering ourselves so that the new man, the total Christ, totus Christus, can be born of the Spirit in each one of us and all of us together in the Church.”135 This for Behr-Sigel is confirmed by the tradition of the Orthodox Church that Mary represents all-humanity and is a “sign, the anticipation of a human person entirely given to the Lord.”136 Therefore, we are all called to share in Mary’s maternal vocation. Mary in her account is a prophet and liberator who demonstrates the life a follower of Christ should have. Behr-Sigel circumscribes her Mariology within Christology. Moreover, beyond stressing Mary’s prophetic role in salvation history and her revelation of the goal of Christian discipleship, she does not speculate on Mary’s Dormition or role in the eschaton. For Behr-Sigel, all that is necessary to know about the Mother of God is contained in the divine liturgy. Nevertheless, for Behr-Sigel the Orthodox theological attitude permits “great freedom to interpret and appropriate the mystery according to times and places.”137 This freedom permits her to stress the active, prophetic, maternal, and liberating function of Mary.138 Because there is not a sound basis for the teaching that the Holy Spirit is feminine or the link between Mary and the Holy Spirit in the Bible, she rejects this argument.139 Her reflections on Mary share a remarkable similarity with Bulgakov. Like Bulgakov, for Behr-Sigel, Mary is a model for believers and Spiritbearing saints, but also Bulgakov’s controversial bisexual essentialism and this essentialism informs her thought about Mary in as much as discipleship entails acting femininely like Mary. Bulgakov, of course, delves into much

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

211

greater detail about these issues than Behr-Sigel. It is these details that are a cause of concern for many, and as I illustrated, create problems in his thought (e.g., the relationship of femininity to Christ). Also, although he does not use the term “otherness” to explain the sexes, Bulgakov treats gender as a mystery that is based on the mystery of the Trinity. Mary for Bulgakov is not the model for women but rather the pattern for the members of the Church. Like Behr-Sigel, Bulgakov’s Mary has a liberating function, to reject the injustices of the world and build the kingdom of God through humble obedience to the will of God.

Conclusion Although there is has been a revival in the study of Bulgakov, particularly by Western theologians and in Russia, in Orthodoxy, Bulgakov’s theology has not been well-received. This is no doubt due to his condemnation by ROCOR and the Patriarchate of Russia, but also his attitude toward Orthodox theology. Bulgakov agrees with his Russian interlocutors that God is more dissimilar than similar to humankind; God cannot be fully understood; God is never exhausted by human knowledge. Bulgakov would agree that an Orthodox theologian must be inspired by the Church Fathers. However, for Bulgakov the Fathers are one important source among many. Basing himself in the divine liturgy, Bulgakov proceeds to define Orthodox Mariology. Bulgakov, who was a product of one the most creative periods in Russian thought, incorporates this energy and creativity into his theological work and thus seeks to articulate the Orthodox experience of Mary. For Lossky and Florovsky this was inappropriate. The idealizations in his thought to which both feminists and these theologians react negatively were perceived as unwarranted speculations. Nevertheless, in evaluating Bulgakov’s theology from an Orthodox perspective, the central question at hand is “What is the nature of Orthodox theology?” If Lossky is correct and Orthodox theology is patristic, apophatic theology, then Bulgakov’s theology does not represent Orthodoxy.140 It is heresy. On the other hand, if Orthodox theology is first and foremost an exposition of God’s relationship with humankind (Godhumanhood), then perhaps Bulgakov has something to offer contemporary Orthodox thinkers, for his Mariology can provide an inclusive, albeit a traditional reflection on the Mother of God that can seriously dialogue with feminism and other theologies of liberation. Nevertheless, Bulgakov’s Mariology is not without its faults. Bulgakov’s lack of attention to the historical Mary and the secondary status of women are unacceptable. Students of Bulgakov, therefore, are challenged by Johnson and feminist theologians to supplement Bulgakov’s Mariology with historical treatments of Mary as well as to correct his problematic exegesis of Genesis 2:21–22. Concerning the latter, it is important to note that his treatment of Genesis 2:21–22 reflects his conformity to a traditional exegesis of this verse. Writing before the feminist theory was

212

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

considered acceptable by mainstream Christianity; he had no good reason to challenge it. As I mentioned above, his interpretation of Genesis 2:21–22 comported neatly to the popular theories of gender and sexuality during the Russian Religious Renessiance. Moreover, although Bulgakov stresses Eve’s creation from Adam as an axiom of his anthropology, it unnecessarily complicates his thought, subordinating women to men. After all, in other places, Bulgakov clearly states that the first two chapters of Genesis should be interpreted symbolically.141 Moreover, his trinitarian interpretation of Genesis 1:27 gives enough good reason for his spiritual bisexuality and differentiation of the sexes that are the basis of his anthropology. At the same time, it is important to note that his liberating vision of Mary that stresses Mary’s role in relation to the members of the Church and her femininity shares much in common with Bulgakov’s spiritual-daughter Elisabeth Behr-Sigel. Perhaps Bulgakov’s speculations on Mary may offer feminists and theologians who are committed to upholding the veneration and esteem of Mary in Orthodox worship and the importance of retaining the differentiation of the sexes but reject the traditional patriarchal structure of Marian theology that has tended to delimit women to passive roles in the Church a way to understand Mary’s importance for salvation history.

Notes 1 Note that Bulgakov’s reception within the diaspora community in Paris was mixed at best. Although his colleagues respected him for his teaching, scholarship, and pastoral activity, his Sophiology was controversial. This is evident in the “Majority report” that exonerated Bulgakov. Note, however, that the report argues that Bulgakov is not a heretic; it does not report that his Sophiology is an authentic expression of Orthodoxy. The report itself argues that his thought is in need of clarification. Moreover, even though Bulgakov spent nearly fifteen years working at Saint Sergius Theological Institute, he did not establish anything like a sophiological school. With exception to perhaps Lev Zander, Bulgakov had no disciples that continued publishing on Sophiology. After his death, he was virtually ignored until recently. Today, in fact, although Bulgakov remains a respected theologian, at Saint Sergius Theological Institute his Sophiology continues to be treated with suspicion. 2 Maximovitch scoffed at the neo-patristic movement because he thought that the prefix “neo” suggests a rediscovery of the Fathers who had been forgotten. However, Maximovitch stresses that the Fathers were not forgotten and considers his Mariology a continuation of the Father’s thought. For Florovsky, who is usually considered the father of this movement, “neo” did not mean a rediscovery per se, but rather a new application of the Fathers’ thought to the challenges modern society posed. 3 Although Johnson does not evaluate Bulgakov’s Mariology directly, she evaluates pneumatological Mariologies that share ample similarities with Bulgakov’s thought. Her evaluation provides my study with fertile grounds for dialogue. 4 Cf. Andrew Louth, “Review: Paul Valliere, Modern Russian Theology– Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov: Orthodox Theology,” (Scottish Journal of Theology 56 (2003): pp. 124–126), p. 126.

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

213

5 Bulgakov frequently quotes the Church Fathers. His major trilogy and minor trilogy are littered with long footnotes from the Church Fathers to justify his positions. However, readers of Bulgakov’s major trilogy may be misled by the English translation. Boris Jakim, who translated them into English, drops Bulgakov’s long quotations from the Church Fathers in his footnotes. Allan T. Smith, who translated Bulgakov’s minor trilogy as well as The Unfading Light into English, does not edit Bulgakov’s footnotes. 6 Lossky was in part responsible for the Sophiology controversy. His letter to Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow regarding Bulgakov’s theology gave the Metropolitan enough concern to respond with his letter, O Sofii, premudrosti bozheit: Ukaz moskovskoi patriarkhii I dokladnaya zapiski prof. prot S. Bulgakova I Mitropolita Evlogiya (On Sophia, the Wisdom of God: The Decree of Moscow Patriarchate and the Statements of Professor the Archpriest S. Bulgakov and Metropolitan Evlogii) that condemned Bulgakov’s theology. 7 Cf. Williams, A Margin of Silence, p. 36. 8 The English translation is The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (1944). Lossky pejoratively refers to Bulgakov on three occasions, and he accuses Bulgakov’s Sophiology as an ecclesiology that has gone astray in this book. 9 Williams notes that although Lossky disagreed with Bulgakov’s Sophiology, he had a great affection for him. According to Williams, this is evidenced by the fact that Lossky attended Bulgakov’s funeral in 1944 despite the dangers posed by the Second World War. (Rowan Williams, “The Theology of Vladimir Nikolaiev Lossky: An Exposition and Critique,” (Ph.D. diss., Oxford: Oxford University, 1973), p. 14.) 10 Cf. Jospeh Ross Sauvé, “Georges V. Florovsky and Vladimir N. Lossky: An Exploration, Comparison, and Demonstration of their Unique Approaches to the Neopatristic Synthesis,” (Ph.D. diss., Durham, UK: Durham University, 2010), p. 60. 11 Florovsky presents a system of theology that is at odds with Bulgakov’s Sophiology. Cf. Georges Florovsky, “Creation and Creaturehood” in The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky: Creation and Redemption, pp. 43–78, (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing, 1976). 12 Cf., Paul L. Gavrilyuk, “Florovsky’s Neopatristic Synthesis and the Future Ways of Orthodox Theology” in Orthodox Constructions of the West, Edited by George E. Demacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou, pp. 102–124, (New York: Fordham University Press, 2013), p. 109. See also Gavrilyuk’s book Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance: Changing Paradigms in Historical and Systematic Theology, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.) 13 Alexis Klimoff, “Georges Florovsky and the Sophiological Controversy,” (St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49 (2005): pp. 67–100), p. 75. 14 Metropolitan Evlogy and the churches under his jurisdiction left communion with the Patriarchate of Moscow due to Met. Sergius’s relationship to the USSR. Evlogy’s émigré community functioned as a de facto autonomous Russian Church that was not under the jurisdiction of the Met. of Moscow (severed in 1924) or jurisdiction of the Karlovtsy Synod (severed in 1926). The archives at The Fellowship of St. Albans and St. Sergius reveal that the members of the fellowship of St. Albans and St. Sergius suspected that there was a political motivation behind this decree. One letter entitled “Confidential” and disseminated is telling about this suspicion. The author suggests that the rejection of Bulgakov by Met. Sergius was a communist plot to discredit Russians like Bulgakov who were unwilling to recognize the authority and legitimacy of the communist state. The suspicion was that Met. Sergius was controlled by the communists. (A. F. Dobbie-Bateman, Confidential Note for the Executive,

214

15 16

17 18

19 20 21

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology (Oxford: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Archives, 21 October 1933), p. 4.) Sauvé, p. 112; Kristina Stockl, “Modernity and Its Critique in the 20th Century Russian Orthodox Thought,” (Stud East Sur Thought 58 (2006): pp. 243–259), pp. 252–253. Florovsky advocates a neo-patristic synthesis. On his method, Sauvé writes, “Florovsky’s fundamental proposition is this: it is necessary to return to the Fathers of the Church, not only in their writings but in their spiritual paths. And by so doing, one enters into the same Spirit of Truth that led and guided them: one enters into the ecclesial tradition. But also, there is a need to have a correct theology to begin with, and from this starting point, to take the patristic sources and apply them, synthesize them into contemporary life and existence.” (Sauvé, p. 136.) In Florovsky own words “[t]o follow the fathers’ does not mean to simply quote their sentences. It means to have acquired their mind.” (Georges Florovsky, “Patristic Theology and the Ethos of the Orthodox Church” in Aspects of Church History, Vol. 4, pp. 11–30, (Belmont, Nordland: Nordland Publishing, 1989), p. 18.) Moreover, to acquire the patristic mind is “to regain a wider historical perspective . . . which would embrace the whole of the historical experience of the Church in its pilgrimage through the ages.” (Georges Florovsky, “The Church: Her Nature and Task” in The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Vol. 14, pp. 57–72, (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing, 1972), p. 58.) Theologians, therefore, “must regain that ‘sacrificial capacity’ of not developing their own ideas, but of entering into the catholicity of the faith and ‘bear witness solely to the immaculate faith of the Mother Church.” (Sauvé, p. 122.) Like Lossky, in order to write Orthodox theology we must existentially enter into the mind of the Fathers, which is to embrace the Church and its teachings. Unfortunately, as Rodney Peterson illustrates, Florovsky does not offer practical suggestions on how to acquire the mind of the Fathers. Based upon the importance of experiencing the life of the Church, I do not think it is possible for him to clarify how this method works, other than offering cautions. (Rodney L. Peterson, “Local Ecumenism and the Neo-Patristic Synthesis of Father Georges Florovsky,” (Greek Orthodox Theological Review 41 (Summer–Fall 1996): pp. 217–242), p. 229.) Georges Florovsky, “The Ever-Virgin Mother of God” in The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky: Creation and Redemption, Vol. 3, pp. 171–188, (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing, 1976), p. 175. Williams, The Theology of Vladimir Nikolaiev Lossky, p. ii. Ultimately, for Lossky, Bulgakov’s theology is dangerous because it distorts ecclesiastical tradition (Ibid., p. 63.) Bulgakov’s theology is based on biblical and patristic sources that have a minor significance in the Orthodox faith. (Vladimir Lossky, The Sophia Controversy: Protopriest S. Bulgakov’s “Report” and the Meaning of the Decree of the Moscow Patriarchate (Spor o Sofii: Dokladnaia Zapiska prot. S. Bulgakova i smysl Ukaz Moskovskoi Patriarkhii), Translated by William Kevin Fisher, (2004), p. 24.) Lossky concludes that Bulgakov’s works have all the trappings of a personal, Gnostic theology. Bulgakov neglects the consensus of the fathers, stressing works that suit his personal aims. Lossky, Spor o Sofii, p. 24. Sauvé, p. 156. Aristotle Papanikolaou provides a concise definition of Lossky’s apophatism. He writes: “[t]heology is apophatic, by which Lossky meant two things: that language is inadequate to represent the God beyond all representation, and that true knowledge of God consists in experience of God rather than in propositions rooted in human logic.” (Aristotle Papanikolaou, “Orthodoxy, Postmodernity, and Ecumenism:The Difference that Divine-Human Communion Makes,” (Journal of Ecumenical Studies 42.4 (Spring 2007): pp. 527–546), p. 532.)

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

215

22 Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998), p. 42. 23 Sauvé, p. 86. 24 Following Lossky, Gavrilyuk accuses Bulgakov of “epistemic immodesty.” The example Gavrilyuk provides to illustrate this immodesty is Bulgakov’s theology of the Trinity. Gavrilyuk argues that Bulgakov “over psychologizes his metaphysics and at times appears to know more about the relations between the persons of the Trinity than these persons know about themselves.” (Paul L. Gavrilyuk, “The Kenotic Theology of Sergius Bulgakov,” (Scottish Journal of Theology 58.3 (2005): pp. 251–269), p. 267.) Robert Bird concurs with this sentiment and argues that Bulgakov’s sources are “ultimately non-Orthodox, partly because his method relies more on personal speculation than on any fidelity to tradition.” (Robert Bird, “The Tragedy of Russian Religious Philosophy: Sergei Bulgakov and the Future of Orthodox Theology” in Orthodox Christianity and Contemporary Europe, Edited by Jonathan Sutton and Wil van den Bercken, pp. 211–228, (Leuven-Paris-Dudley: Peeters, 2003), p. 223.) 25 For Bulgakov this position is a form of patristic rabbinicalism that neglects the variations in the Fathers. Andrew Louth argues that for Bulgakov the Fathers form “a mosaic of different parts of history, produced by different historical circumstances. In no way is it comprehensive.” (Louth, “Task of Theology,” p. 246.) Bulgakov approached the Fathers with respect but also with honesty. He recognized that the Fathers do not have all the answers. Yet he also argues that Sophiology is consistent with the Fathers – recall that he links his Sophiology directly to Gregory Palamas. Orthodox theology without sacrificing its heritage needs to engage society, modern ways of thinking, and other Church traditions. For Bulgakov, Orthodox Christians need to utilize prevailing philosophical notions in order to keep the faith relevant. Orthodox theology, for Bulgakov, is first and foremost a mindset open to God and the world. Sophiology was a notion that he employed to make the Orthodox tradition relevant. 26 Bird argues that Russian modernism is the basis of Bulgakov’s theological system. Bird notes that this is apparent in Bulgakov’s attempt to construct a “logically coherent system.” This logical and systematic approach to thought is a characteristic of Russian modernism. (Bird, p. 212.) This desire to produce a logically coherent system is abhorrent to Lossky because it lends itself to unbridled speculations, not faithful to the tradition. 27 Theology “is a moving beyond itself, and outside itself, where intellectual knowledge disappears and the soul joins itself more and more in union to God, and then only love remains.” (Vladimir Lossky, “Darkness and Light in the Knowledge of God” in In the Image and Likeness of God, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), p. 37.) 28 Sauvé, p. 106. 29 Lossky’s articulation of Mary’s holiness relies on Sophia. He argues that the “Divine Wisdom is adapted to the fluctuations of human wills and to the different responses of men to the divine challenge. It is thus that Wisdom hath built herself a house through the generations of the Old Testament righteous men; her house is the all-pure nature of the Holy Virgin.” Mary is the apogee of human holiness in the Old Testament. Here we find a striking similarity to Bulgakov’s own statements about Mary’s link to humanity and the effect of good exercise of free-will of her ancestors that depotentialized the effect of the original sin on her. (Vladimir Lossky, “Mariology” in The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, Edited by C. G. Patelos, pp. 187–98, (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978), pp. 192–193.) 30 Lossky, “Mariology,” p. 192.

216

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

31 Vladimir Lossky, “The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception,” (One Church 25.6 (1971): pp. 277–281), p. 279. 32 Ibid., p. 279. 33 In his The Mystical Theology, he also references St. John Damascus and St. Dmitri of Rostov as evidence for Mary’s preparation. (Lossky, The Mystical Theology, p. 140.) 34 Ibid., p. 141. 35 Ibid., pp. 140–141. Like Bulgakov, Lossky is writing in a French Catholic context, and thus he has to address the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that was not only well-known in his community given close contact with Catholics, but also it was popularized by the Marian apparition in Lourdes, France, which during his life was one of the most visited Christian pilgrimage sites in Europe. Lossky is defensive of this apparition and warns his Orthodox brothers and sisters not to reject it in total because doing so without sober discernment risks “committing a sin against the infinite grace of the Holy Spirit.” (Lossky, “The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception,” p. 280) The issue for Orthodox Christians that reject the Immaculate Conception was that at Lourdes, Mary states “I am the Immaculate Conception.” Interestingly, Lossky notes that Mary’s statement in no way confirms Catholic theology. He notes that she said this on March 25, 1858, which was the feast of the Annunciation, not the conception of Mary. This fact and the grammar of the statement for Lossky indicate that Mary was speaking about the fact that she is the context for the Immaculate Conception of Christ, not that she was immaculately conceived. 36 Vladimir Lossky, “Panagia” in The Mother of God: A Symposium By the Members of the Fellowship of St. Albans and St. Sergius, Edited by L. Mascall, Translated by E. Every, pp. 24–36, (Westminster: Dacre Press, 1949, p. 31. 37 Williams, A Margin of Silence, p. 40. 38 Lossky, “Mariology,” pp. 197, 191. 39 Ibid., p. 194. 40 Ibid., p. 197. 41 Lossky, The Mystical Theology, p. 193. 42 Florovsky also shares much in common with Bulgakov. For instance, like Bulgakov, Florovsky considers virginity a “spiritual and inner attitude,” and he makes the observation that the lack of Marian interest is indicative of a “reduced Christology.” Florovsky argued “Mariology belongs to the very body of Christian doctrine or, if we allow the phrase, to that essential minimum of doctrinal agreement outside which no true unity of faith could even be claimed.” (Florovsky, “The Ever-Virgin Mother of God,” p. 171) Florovsky similarly rejects the Immaculate Conception because it fails to account for Mary’s personal freedom. Florovsky is much more charitable than Bulgakov toward this dogma. He writes: “this solution is valid only in the context of a particular and highly inadequate doctrine of original sin and does not hold outside this particular setting.” (Florovsky, “The Ever-Virgin Mother of God,” p. 182.) 43 Lossky, “The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception,” p. 281. 44 Lossky, “Mariology,” p. 197. 45 Williams offers one of the clearest explanations of what Lossky means when Lossky refers to “necessary silence.” Williams writes, “The silence of Christ and of scripture that Lossky speaks of here must, I think, mean that the truths spoken to us by the word of God are never spoken by words alone. They have what he calls ‘a margin of silence’. If we are not able to listen to that silence out of which the words come, the words will mean nothing. And if scripture is sometimes difficult, not obvious, if it is hard work, that is to remind us that these are truths that cannot simply be expressed in good stories or neat formulae

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

46 47 48 49 50 51 52

53

54

55 56 57

58

59

217

or doctrinal solutions, however technically exact.” (Williams, A Margin of Silence, pp. 39–40.) Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God, (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974), p. 147. Lossky, “Mariology,” p. 197. Lossky, “Panagia,” p. 35. Ibid. Ibid., p. 36. Ibid., p. 35. Although Lossky is correct in noting the four centuries of silence regarding Mary’s Dormition, he does not take into account the proliferation of writings on her death and Assumption that occurred between the fifth and seventh century of the common era. (Cf. Stephen Shoemaker, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 1.) Moreover, Daley’s book, On the Dormition of Mary: Early Patristic Homilies, demonstrates that Mary’s Dormition was a topic for preaching by the Fathers. (Brian E. Daley, On the Dormition of Mary: Early Patristic Homilies, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1997.) Stephen J. Shoemaker, “The Virgin Mary in the Ministry of Jesus and the Early Church According to the Earliest Life of the Virgin,” (Harvard Theological Review 98.4 (2005): pp. 441–467), p. 460. Besides these ancient sources, after the Petrine reforms, Russian Orthodoxy was dominated by Western scholastic and at time even Protestant theological method. The manualists are a case in point as their manuals of theology appropriate scholastic methodology. Lossky did not take their contribution to Russian theology seriously and largely dismissed their work as non-Orthodox theology. Maximus the Confessor’s Life of the Virgin, which, as Shoemaker demonstrates, interprets the silence of the Apostolic Church on Mary as a “marketing strategy.” Shoemaker argues that the inclusion of the life of Mary would have made the account of Christ’s existence and teaching less believable. (Shoemaker, “The Virgin Mary,” p. 453.) Maximus’ Life of Mary provides an extensive account of the Dormition and Assumption of Mary. There is no indication that Lossky was aware of this work. Moreover, there is debate whether this work was written by Maximus the Confessor. Nevertheless, Shoemaker makes a convincing argument that it was authored by Maximus. (Cf. Stephen J. Shoemaker, “Introduction” in Life of the Virgin: Maximus the Confessor, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), p. 8.; Cf. Shoemaker, “The Virgin Mary,” p. 444.) He argues that Maximus’ Life of the Virgin represents not only an Orthodox Mariology, but the earliest biography of Mary in existence. (Ibid.) The fact that Bulgakov spends an entire chapter speaking about the Glorification of the Mother of God in his The Burning Bush was no doubt offensive to Lossky. Cf. Myroslaw Tataryn, “History Matters: Bulgakov’s Sophianic Key,” (St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49 (2005): pp. 203–218). Petro Bilaniuk characterizes Florovsky’s thought on Mary as mariological reductionism. (Petro B. J. Bilaniuk, “The Theotokos as Pneumatophora” in Studies in Eastern Christianity, Vol. 2, pp. 23–42, (Toronto: Ukrainian Free University, 1982), p. 24.) This is ironic since he makes this statement in a treatise on Mary not on Christ. In his defense, he warns his reader that the intent of this paper was not a formal theology of Mary, but rather to prove that Mary belongs to Christian doctrine. (Florovsky, “The Ever-Virgin Mother of God” p. 171.) Georges Florovsky, “The Ever-Virgin Mother of God,” p. 173.

218

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

60 Similar to Lossky, Dean-Drummond notes that this gender analogy based on the Son and the Holy Spirit is odd. (Celia Deane-Drummond, Christ and Evolution: Wonder and Wisdom, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), p. 123.) 61 In 1937, Metropolitan Sergius accused Bulgakov of anthropocentrism. Interestingly, as Zwahlen notes, Bulgakov agreed with this accusation. Bulgakov writes: “But then Metropolitan Sergius accuses me of taking up an anthropocentric position because my starting point would be the axiom of man being God’s image and likeness. But what else could that be than a truth given to us by revelation itself? ‘God created humanity in God’s own image’ in order to ‘fill the earth and master it’ (Gen 1:26–28). Is ‘orthodox consciousness’ really allowed to juggle with that truth?” (Sergius Bulgakov, Dokladnaja zapiska Mitropolitu Evlogiju Sergija Bulgakova po povodu opredělenija Archierejskago sobora v Karlovcach otnositel’no učenija o Sofii Premudrosti Božiej, p. 17 in Regula Zwahlen, “Different Concepts of Personality: Nikolaj Berdjaev and Sergej Bulgakov,” (Stud East Eur Thought 64 (2012): pp. 183–204), p. 185.) 62 Lossky, Spor o Sofii, p. 23. 63 Bulgakov, BL, p. 91. 64 Ibid. 65 Lossky, Spor o Sofii, p. 24. 66 Cf. Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church, (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), p. 67. 67 Palamas, Prosopopeiae, P.G., t. 150, 1361C. 68 Sauvé, p. 207. 69 Bulgakov was aware of this interpretation, and he rejects it on the account that it smacks of crass occasionalism in the Godhead and presumes a “radical sinful infirmity of the body.” The implication of this teaching is that the body is a result of sin that will be discarded at the Resurrection. Bulgakov attempts to link this idea with the heresy of the Bogomils. (Bogomils were a dualist religious sect in Russia.) (Cf., Bulgakov, UF, p. 491, n. 21.) 70 Nearly nine years after writing Spor o Sofii, Lossky states this explicitly. (Cf. Lossky, The Mystical Theology, pp. 108–109.) 71 Lossky was also appalled that Bulgakov would attribute sexuality to God. Lossky quotes Metropolitan Sergius’ decree: “[i]t is difficult to say what concrete benefit is gained for us, in the sense of clarifying the mysteries of life and the unfathomable Divinity, by giving us this distinction (taken from who knows where) in the simple essence of God of two elements – masculine and feminine. The riskiness of such discussions about God and their extreme seductiveness is underscored by the fact that Bulgakov wishes to understand the image of God in man in two genders. From this it is not so far to the deification of sexual life, as it was with some gnostics, or as it was among the so-called “spiritual Christians”, or as it is with several secular authors such as V. V. Rozanov. We in no way want to suggest that this is what Bulgakov is teaching. But it is characteristic for things to develop in this way . . . the pupil could come to the conclusions that the teacher tried to deny in horror. And this is the essence of the temptation.” (Lossky, Spor o Sofii, p. 27.) 72 Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984), p. 77. 73 Sauvé, p. 209. 74 Lossky, Orthodox Theology, p. 67. 75 Sauvé, p. 209. Moreover, Lossky’s Christian anthropology is based on a Bulgakovian reading of the Genesis account of creation. This leads him to express “consubstantial interiority” or perichoresis, as Williams noted, of human beings before the fall and in the eschaton. (Cf. Williams, A Margin of Silence, p. 36; Lossky, Orthodox Church, p. 77.)

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

219

76 Lossky, Orthodox Church, p. 77. 77 Lossky, Spor o Sofii, p. 24. 78 Florovsky argues that Bulgakov’ Sophiology is problematic for this reason: Bulgakov fails to differentiate acts of will from nature. (Florovsky, “Creation and Creaturehood,”, p. 49.) 79 Lossky, Spor o Sofii, p. 26. 80 Males and females are differentiated by not only biology but also by a spiritual/ psychological predisposition toward a certain activity. 81 St. John Maximovitch was an important Orthodox bishop of the ROCOR – his last ecclesiastical position was the archbishop of San Francisco. He was roughly a contemporary of Sergius Bulgakov, and he wrote his treatise on Mary, The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God, in 1933, as a response to Bulgakov’s The Burning Bush and Catholic Mariology. In The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God, Maximovitch provides a brief overview of the Orthodox teaching on the Holy Mother of God. 82 Protopresbyter George Grabbe, “Toward a History of the Ecclesiastical Divisions within the Russian Diaspora,” (Living Orthodoxy 14.4 (July–August 1992)): p. 38. 83 Cf. Hieromonk John (Maximovitch), “Pochitanie Bogoroditsy i Ioanna Krestitelia i novoe napravlenie russkoi religiozno-filosofskoi mysli; Uchenie o Sofii, Premudrosti Bozhiei/Veneration of the Mother of God and John the Baptist and a new direction of Russian religious philosophical thought; Teaching on Sophia, the Wisdom of God,” Collection Letopis’ pochitaniia Arkhiepiskopa Ioanna (Maksimovicha), Platina, California: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1980. St. John Maximovitch argues that Bulgakov was an incompetent patristic scholar (Cf. Seraphim Rose, “Introduction” in The Orthodox Theology of Archbishop John Maximovitch, Edited by Seraphim Rose, pp. 11–20, (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1996), pp. 14, 18.) 84 This text is a succinct treatise on the Mother of God in Orthodoxy. The translator and spiritual son of St. John Maximovitch, Seraphim Rose, translated this text because of its clear prose and introductory character that was useful for new converts, especially those from the Protestant tradition. (Archbishop John Maximovitch, The Orthodox Veneration of the Birthgiver of God, (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1996), p. 9.) Therefore, this text is not an academic work per se, and Maximovitch’s criticism of Bulgakov is poignant but not comprehensive. 85 Maximovitch is less willing to speculate than Lossky and Florovsky. His The Orthodox Veneration of the Birthgiver of God provides proof texts from the Fathers and the Scriptures to illustrate his brief points. He is the most conservative theologian that I have discussed. 86 Maximovitch, The Orthodox Veneration of the Birthgiver of God, p. 52. 87 Ibid., pp. 53–54. 88 Ibid., p. 53. 89 Ibid., p. 52. 90 Ibid., p. 54. 91 Ibid., p. 61. 92 Ibid., pp. 60–61. 93 Cf. Melanie E. Trexler, “The World as the Body of God: A Feminist Approach to Religious Pluralism,” (Dialogue & Alliance 21 (2007): pp. 45–68); Cf. Brenda Meehan, “Wisdom/Sophia, Russian Identity, and Western Feminist Theology,” (Cross Currents 46 (1996): pp. 149–168). 94 Lev Breck, “Nearly a Century of Life” in Discerning the Signs of the Times: The Vision of Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, Edited and translated by Michael Plekon, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), p. 130. Although I am using

220

95 96 97 98 99 100 101

102 103

104 105 106 107 108

109 110 111

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology Berh-Sigel as a sparring partner for Bulgakov, her love and respect for Sergius Bulgakov is well-documented. Behr-Sigel, in fact, kept Bulgakov in “radiant remembrance.” (Michael Evdokimov, “Preface” in Discerning the Signs of the Times: The Vision of Elisabeth Berh-Sigel, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), p. x.) Rosenthal, “Nature and Function of Sophia,” p. 169. Bulgakov does not transcend gender stereotypes, but rather re-inscribes both stereotypes into each sex. (Meehan, p. 160) Bulgakov, LG, Ch. 2, Sec. 4, Locations 2028–2030 of 7314; Cf. Bulgakov, BL, p. 99. Deane-Drummond, Christ and Evolution, p. 124. Ibid., p. 123. Bulgakov, BL, p. 99. Behr-Sigel notes that the argument that Mary is a model for women is alien to Orthodoxy and the Fathers. (Elizabeth Behr-Sigel, Ministry of Women in the Church, Translated by Fr. Steven Bigham, (Pasadena, CA: Oakwood Publications, 1991, Kindle Digital File), Ch. 6, Location 4018 of 5417.) Johnson, Truly Our Sister, p. 41. One criticism that is common among secondary scholars is that Bulgakov’s idealizations of Jesus and Mary neglects that they are historical persons. For this reason, although many feminists have adopted similar Sophia imagery that Bulgakov uses, they emphasize that Jesus is Sophia, not the Logos is Sophia as Bulgakov does. Dean-Drummond reiterates this criticism in her argument that Bulgakov stresses the humanity of Mary to the point that he neglects Mary the person. She states that it is better to error on the side of the historical due to the unfortunate consequences of idealizations (e.g., the Virgin-Whore phenomenon). (Deane-Drummond, Christ and Evolution, p. 124.) Johnson, Truly Our Sister, p. 100. Ibid., p. 40. Mary shares the human condition. What is exceptional in Mary is the degree to which she is receptive of God’s grace and holiness. Meehan, p. 163. Cf. Ibid., p. 162. Meehan notes that Bulgakov shares an epistemology congenial to feminism. Like feminists, Bulgakov agrees that there are multiple sources of knowledge, which is evident in his theological method that draws from personal experience and liturgy in addition to Scripture and Tradition. Ibid. Crum, “The Doctrine of Sophia,” pp. 40–41. Johnson’s theology of Mary is silent on the Mary of faith. This was not unintentional, but rather indicative of her overarching goal: to reshape the Mariological tradition in a manner more acceptable to feminists. She wrote: “first and foremost Mary is not a model, a type, an archetype, a prototype . . . the image of the eternal feminine, an ideal disciple, ideal woman, ideal mother.” (Johnson, Truly Our Sister, p. 101) Johnson’s stress on Mary’s historical existence is intended to tether down “symbolic construlas” and insights about Mary. But the unintended effect of this stress is the marginalization of Mary’s role in salvation history. This is evident in the paucity of references in her book to the experience of Mary in the life and spiritual/liturgical experience of Church. This failure to take seriously Mary’s role in salvation history makes her thought incomplete or perhaps even unacceptable to many Catholic and Orthodox Christians. This is highlighted particularly in the Orthodox context that has a deep veneration of Mary that is based in its liturgy.

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120

121

122

123

124

221

Johnson, Truly Our Sister, p. 47. Cf. Ibid., p. 56. Ibid., p. 67. Johnson, Truly Our Sister, p. 82; Cf. Leonardo Boff, The Maternal Face of God: The Feminine and Its Religious Expressions, (New York: Harper Collins, 1987). Johnson, Truly Our Sister, p. 86. Ibid. One of the problems with interpreting Bulgakov’s anthropology is his androcentric language. In theory all experiences are either masculine or feminine, involving primarily activity or receptivity on the part of the subject. In feminism the distinction between sex and gender is hotly contested. Traditionally, sex and gender are synonymous. However, the second wave of feminists tended to define sex as psychological differences and gender as societal constructions. Post-modern feminists “re-smudge the difference, pointing out that even psychological difference can be an ‘effect ‘of societal discourse.” (James C. Livingston, “Feminist Theology” in Modern Christian Thought: The Twentieth Century, 2nd Edition, Edited by James C. Livingston and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, pp. 417–442, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), p. 419.) Underlying Johnson’s thought is her attempt to save Mary from the patriarchal and at times misogynist portrayal of Mary in the Christian tradition. But of course, this calls into question the patriarchal context of not only the Marian dogmas, but also Marian veneration and Mary’s portrayal in the liturgy. It is no wonder why her re-visioning of Mary lacks substantial references to these sources. For Bulgakov this would be theologically unacceptable, since the liturgy functions as an authoritative body of revelation. Bulgakov is frank that most of the information we have about Mary is from the Liturgy. Sergius N. Bulgakov, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Worship,” (Christian East 13.1 (1932): pp. 30–42), p. 35. At the same time, we need to be careful not to downplay his androcentric reading of Genesis. Note that in Unfading Light and The Burning Bush, Eve plays a secondary function and she is silent. Moreover, in the Unfading Light, Eve is a derivative human, as she is created from Adam. Throughout his theological works, Adam, not Eve, is the subject of his thought. Nevertheless, his emphasis on Mary, especially in relation to the Holy Spirit, corrects these androcentric elements of his thought. Women are not second-class citizens, but equal to men, and they are called by God to live out the work of Christ through the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Cf. Michael J. Scanlon, “Anthropology” in The New Dictionary of Theology, Edited by Joseph A. Komonchak, pp. 27–41, (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1987), p. 41. Michael J. Scanlon argues for a reading of Genesis 1:27 similiar to Bulgakov’s interpretation. However, as opposed to Bulgakov’s stress on the sexual principles, he refers to these principles as “archetypical psychic energies.” Ibid., p. 41. His theory of spiritual bisexuality dovetails his theory of personhood. The bisexual subject cannot know him/herself except in relation to another bisexual subject. Nevertheless, differentiating the male or female hypostasis from their shared bisexual nature is a thorny issue for Bulgakov. Bulgakov on the spiritual bisexuality of humankind writes “The human sophianic spirit is a male-female androgyne, although, in fact, every individual human being is only either male or female; that is, despite this androgynism of the

222

125

126 127 128

129

130

131

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology spirit, every individual human being experiences being according to only one of these principles, in relation to which the other principle is only complementary . . . And this androgynism [or spiritual bisexualty] is the fullness of the image of God in human beings, just as, conversely, a human being in whom one of these principles would predominate to the point of the virtual absence of the other would be a spiritual freak, strictly speaking, no longer a human being.” (Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 4, Sec. 1, Locations 2757–2760 of 6301) And again he writes “this differentiation between male and female qualifies in a very essential way the spirit of man, who is in no wise an ‘androgyne.’” (Ibid., Ch. 5, Sec. 5, Locations 4873–4874 of 6301.) Although every man is, to a certain degree, androgynous in his spirit, but is male or female.” In other words, one principle is dominant in every human person. In The Orthodox Church Bulgakov writes that all people are called to acquire the Holy Spirit, and this is the goal of prayer. (Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, p. 149.) This prophetic call is in reality to learn what is means to say, “It is not I who live, it is Christ Who liveth in me.” But this is different from the ministry of the priestly office that is exclusive to the “male sex.” (Ibid.) Bulgakov does not explain why only men can be ordained; however, it is clear that he does not diverge from the Orthodox Church on this point. Bulgakov, The Comforter, Ch. 5, Sec. 5, Location 4925 of 6301. Ibid., Footnote, Location 6123 of 6301, n. 5. Although Behr-Sigel criticizes Bulgakov’s Sophiology, she only flippantly considers his thought on women and Mary. Her most detailed discussion of Bulgakov ideas was published in this article: Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, “La sophiologie du Peré Boulgakov,” (Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 19 (1939): pp. 130–158). However, her criticisms are directed at his inability to reconcile his Sophiology with the New Testament. Behr-Sigel argues, Christ has an instrumental significance in Bulgakov’s Sophiology; Christ is only a step towards human deification and fails to consider New Testament eschatology. However, she acknowledges that her assessment has not included Bulgakov’s The Bride of the Lamb. (Behr-Sigel, “La sophiologie,” pp. 156–158.) Nevertheless, Behr-Sigel had a profound respect for Bulgakov as a spiritual father. She, in fact, credits him with introducing her to the Orthodox faith. She was attracted by his free-spirited thinking. (Behr-Sigel, Ministry of Women in the Church, Introduction, Location 311 of 5417.) Behr-Sigel, Ministry of Women in the Church, Preface, Location 251 of 5417. Oddly, Behr-Sigel notes that in the Orthodox Church no systematic development of Mariology has occurred, and she cites the fact that Mary only has a small role in Bulgakov’s The Orthodox Church as evidence of this. Behr-Sigel seems to be unaware of Bulgakov’s The Burning Bush, and the role Mary plays in Sophiology. (Behr-Sigel, Ministry of Women in the Church, Ch. 6, Locations 3715 of 5417.) She only notes that Paul Evdokimov’s identification of Mary with the Holy Spirit and subsequent defense of the prohibition for women to be ordained as priests is based on the Sophiology of Bulgakov. (Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, Discerning the Signs of the Times: The Vision of Elisabeth Berh-Sigel, Edited and translated by Michael Plekon, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), pp. 106–107.) She, however, mistakenly argues that Bulgakov associates Mary’s femininity with Sophia and not the Holy Spirit. She views the pneumatological Mariology of Evdokimov as a corrective of Bulgakov’s pneumatology. (Behr-Sigel, Ministry of Women in the Church, Ch. 6, Location 4053 of 5317.) Bulgakov associates Mary’s femininity with both the Holy Spirit and Sophia. Behr-Sigel, Ministry of Women in the Church, Ch. 1, Location 1603 of 5317.

Critics and the reception of Bulgakov’s Mariology

223

132 Ibid., Ch. 4, Locations 2608–2610 of 5317. 133 Ibid., Ch. 6, Locations 4059–4061 of 5317. 134 Behr-Sigel argues that one characteristic of womanhood is that women get “deeply and personally involved in whatever they undertake.” (Ibid., Ch. 4, Locations 2626 of 5317.) Although Behr-Sigel agrees that women and men are equal but distinct, she rejects arguments that roles in the Church should be distributed based on sex/gender. She notes that this idea lacks scriptural support. (Ibid., Ch. 6, Location 4122 of 5317.) Moreover, she argues that humankind needs to “awaken in them a feminine attitude of effacement and of acceptance when confronted by mystery.” (Ibid., Ch. 4, Locations 2659 of 5317.) If these attitudes are desirable for the priestly service, then perhaps because of the dominant feminine principle, women may be better suited than men for ministry in the Church. 135 Ibid., Introduction, Locations 602–605 of 5317. 136 Ibid., Introduction, Location 598 of 5317. 137 Ibid., Ch. 6, Location 3351 of 5317. 138 Note that Elizabeth Behr-Sigel wrote her dissertation on Bukharev, who, according to Behr-Sigel, was the first to address the problem of human sexuality. (Ibid., Ch. 4, Location 2489 of 5317.) 139 Her sparring partners are Thomas Hopko and Paul Evdokimov. 140 By the same token, Behr-Sigel’s orthodoxy should also be called into question since her methods and teachings are not used by the Fathers. 141 Cf. Bulgakov, BL, p. 171. Bulgakov writes the author of Genesis uses “symbolicmythic images” to describe Eden and the events that took place therein. For this reason, Bulgakov’s is open to the theory of evolution. (Bulgakov, BL, p. 173.) Cf. Walter Sisto, “The Sophiological Synthesis: Sergius Bulgakov and the Dialectic of Faith and Science on Death and Evolution” in Faith in Reason in Russian Thought, Edited by Teresa Obolevitch and Paweł Rojek. pp. 173–183, (Krakow, Poland: Copernicus Center Press, 2015).

Conclusion

Sergius Bulgakov provides an important contribution to Marian Studies from the Orthodox Christian tradition. However, we cannot appreciate his Mariology unless we examine the sophiological context as well as the important role that the Russian Religious Renaissance played in the genesis of his genius. With respect to Russian Sophiology, Bulgakov systematically develops the insights on Mary proffered by Vladimir Solov’ev and Pavel Florensky. Therefore, his The Burning Bush is the fullest development of sophianic Mariology initiated by Solov’ev and continued by Bulgakov’s mentor, Pavel Florensky. The influence of the Russian Religious Renaissance is evident in his emphasis on sexuality and attempt to systematize Russian devotion to Mary. Nevertheless, his Mariology is rooted in the devotion and worship of the Orthodox Church, and the mediating principle for his Mariology is the patristic notion, lex orandi lex credendi. The marian and sophiological feasts, prayers, biblical readings, and iconography are his main sources for his theological speculations about Mary. However, Bulgakov also incorporates the Church Fathers and the ecumenical councils into his thought. Thus, Bulgakov’s controversial thesis that Mary is the pneumatophoric hypostasis is based on the veneration of Mary in the liturgy, particularly Mary’s association with the Holy Spirit and the created Sophia, but also attempted to explain the teaching of the Council of Ephesus (431) that Mary is the Theotokos. Bulgakov, therefore, concludes that the only way to understand the Orthodox Church’s veneration of Mary without sacrificing the unique mediation of Jesus Christ or attributing a strictly instrumental significance to Mary that would in effect amount to de facto nestorianism is to understand her veneration within the context of pneumatology. Mary is the first human hypostasis to be fully deified and share in the life and mission of the Holy Spirit. In this way, Mary exhausts human activity in terms of holiness. She illustrates the human side of the divine-human synergy of the economy of salvation. Bulgakov attempts to theologize what Catholic mariologists might call the doctrine of Mary as the co-Redemptrix. Mary is not the savior but rather a saving hypostasis. She is actively and preeminently involved in the accomplishment of Jesus Christ’s saving work, but her activity is circumscribed within the economic

226

Conclusion

mission of the Holy Spirit. She is the pneumatophoric hypostasis in the fullest sense of the term because she gives herself totally and humbly to the mission and will of the Holy Spirit. In this way, her role in salvation history enhances Christ’s saving work, as she not only complements Christ’s masculine principle but in her, God involves a created human and female hypostasis in the salvation of the world. In this way, Mary is truly the New Eve, who recapitulates Eve and fully involves women in the salvation of the world. Whereas Eve’s disobedience initiated the original sin and damnation of the human race, Mary’s obedience initiated the Incarnation that will bring about the salvation of the human race. Moreover, whereas Adam’s sin complements Eve’s sin, Christ the New Adam’s salvific actions are complemented by Mary’s divine motherhood. In Christ and Mary, Jesus Christ redeems men and women as well as the male and female principles. However, Bulgakov places Mary squarely within the human race. By doing this, his Mariology is an anticipated eschatology. Mary realizes the relationship with the Holy Spirit in which all created hypostases are called to participate. With Bulgakov’s unique articulation about Mary in mind, the title of this study “the soul of the world” is apropos.1 Mary is the “soul of the world” because she is creaturely Sophia personified, the person that the Holy Spirit uses to vivify our salvation, and she is the model for discipleship. She is a human person who is completely deified by the Holy Spirit. She accomplishes the goal of the human race to become an all-human being, but also to participate in the mission of the Holy Spirit. Redeemed humankind will take part in Mary’s glory, holiness, and mission, albeit never approaching her intimate relationship with her Son. The pneumatological context for his Mariology balances his idealizations of Mary with his prophetic vision of Mary. Mary is the first Spirit-bearer; however, every disciple is called to give their marian fiat and become Spirit-bearers: to be entirely receptive to God in his or her life. Every human hypostasis’s vocation is to become a spiritual mother, to participate in the mission of the Holy Spirit. Mary, therefore, stands among the disciples in the Church as the first to fully, prophetically, and creatively engage the Gospel. Every disciple is called to follow Mary’s prophetic and feminine example. Behr-Sigel in a Bulgakovian manner expresses this with clarity: [i]n Mary and with her, we are all called, men and women, to a “feminine” attitude of welcoming grace, of giving and offering ourselves so that the new man, the total Christ, totus Christus, can be born in the Spirit in each one of us and in all of us together in the Church.2 However, this, of course, means to live out the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is significant that the last words of Mary in the New Testament are “Do whatever he tells you” (John 2:5). In this way, Mary, as the revelation of the Holy Spirit, leads us to Christ and his will for humanity.

Conclusion

227

Moreover, as the “soul of the world,” Mary is intimately close and present to each human person. She is the greatest human hypostasis and the advocate for humanity before God. She is the ladder that connects heaven to earth and allows for Christ to be made incarnate. In this way, there is no Incarnation without the Mother of God and her humanity, which is the life and humanity of Jesus Christ. This insight, in fact, prompted Bulgakov’s attempts to place the veneration of Mary at the forefront of the ecumenical movement. Mary not only gives Christ his humanity historically but also provides a means to understand what it means to say that Christ was fully human and embraces the human experience. Meditation on the role of Mary in salvation history ultimately sheds light on what the Incarnation means. On the other hand, the lack of attention and veneration of Mary will result in “a maimed Christology.” Nevertheless, as the hypostatized humanity of Jesus, Mary is Sophia in its creaturely form. Mary is the complete personification of Sophia in its feminine and creaturely form. As Sophia, in heaven in her redeemed state, Mary permeates creation and created or sophianic nature, so that she is present to each human hypostasis. Existing in heaven, Mary is not bound by space and time, and thus she intercedes on behalf of every member of the human race. She is the incarnation of the praying church, but also, she co-participates in the activity of the Holy Spirit in salvation history so that all are saved by Christ but by way of the Holy Spirit and the Mother of God.3 As Sophia, Mary alone was chosen to partake in the mystery of the Incarnation, and she alone benefits from her intimate maternal relationship with her Son in heaven. Given the challenges of feminism that has traditionally rejected the mariological tradition due to its support of patriarchal structures and devaluation of women’s experiences, Bulgakov’s Mariology is a significant contribution to contemporary Marian studies as well as to the Orthodox understanding of Mary. In his account, Mary does not devalue women but rather in her feminine personage calls both men and women to actualize their femininity and live out the Gospel. Moreover, Bulgakov’s emphasis on gender provides valuable reflections for many Christians, including feminists like Elisabeth Berh-Sigel, who accept the differences but also the mystery of human gender. However, this is not to deny Bulgakov’s shortcomings, including his outmoded language and interpretation of certain passages of Scripture as well as the Christological problems his excessive emphasis on gender creates. Needless to say, from a neo-patristic perspective, Bulgakov’s thought is problematic. Many of his speculations and methods lack a consensus of the Church Fathers, and Bulgakov does not respect the silence of the Orthodox Church on articulating its veneration of Mary that neo-patristic theologians argue is indicative of Orthodox theology. Bulgakov’s lack of apophatism is a result of his modern and historical mindset and sophiological methodology. Whether his mindset and methodology are consistent with the mindset and methodology of contemporary Orthodox theology remains to be seen.

228

Conclusion

Despite these shortcomings, Bulgakov’s The Burning Bush and systematic reflections on Mary in his essays and his two trilogies must be considered a significant contribution to the study of Mary. Bulgakov provides one of the only full-blooded, modern, and systematic Orthodox mariologies that is a noteworthy attempt to describe with theological acuity his experience of Mary in the divine liturgy and the life of the Orthodox Church. Mary is the beginning and end of his meditation of God’s relationship with humankind that encompasses the last two decades of Bulgakov’s life. His reflection on Mary reveals the role and meaning of human synergy with God’s grace, the basis of salvation history. Ultimately the goal and meaning of Christian discipleship are revealed in Mary: to give their fiat to God, to unite by grace with the Holy Spirit, and with Mary and the Holy Spirit proclaim, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus” (Rev 22:20).

Notes 1 Cf. Bulgakov, BB, p. 112. 2 Behr-Sigel, Ministry of Women in the Church, Introduction, Locations 602–605 of 5317. 3 Bulgakov, BB, p. 111.

Bibliography

Primary sources The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission. Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ. Toronto: Novalis, 2005. Bate, Herbert Newell., ed. Faith and Order: Proceedings of the World Conference Lausanne, August 3–21, 1927. London: Student Christian Movement, 1927. Behr-Sigel, Elisabeth. “La Sophiologie du Père S. Boulgakoff.” Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie religienses 139, no. 2 (1939): 130–158. ———. Ministry of Women in the Church. Translated by Steven Bigham. Redondo Beach, CA: Oakwood Publications, 1991. Kindle e-book. Bulgakov, Sergius N. “The Apocalypse of John.” In Sergius Bulgakov: A Bulgakov Anthology. Edited by James Pain and Nicolas Zernov, 157–160. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976. ———. “Apocatastasis and Transfiguration.” In Variable Readings in Russian Philosophy No 2: Sergius Bulgakov: Apocatastasis and Transfiguration. 7-30 Edited and Translated by Boris Jakim. London: The Variable Press, 1995. ———. “Appendix 1: Sophia.” In Variable Reading in Russian Philosophy No 4: Orthodoxy and Modern Society. 51–54. Edited by Robert Bird, Hartford, CT: The Variable Press, 1995. ———. “At the Feast of the Gods: Contemporary Dialogues.” The Slavonic Review 1, no. 3 (1923): 604-622. ———. Avtobiograficheskie zametki. Edited by Lev A. Zander. Paris: YMCA Press, 1946. ———. “Basic Problem of the Theory of Progress.” In Problems of Idealism: Essays in Russian Social Philosophy, Edited by Randall A. Poole, 85–123. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. ———. The Bride of the Lamb. Translated by Boris Jakim. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002. ———. “A Brief Statement on the Place of the Virgin Mary in the Thought and Worship of the Orthodox Church Presented to Section IVc of the Edinburgh Conference.” Sobornost 12 (1937): 29–31. ———. The Burning Bush: On the Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God. Translated by Thomas Allan Smith. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009. ———. “By Jacob’s Well.” The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius 22 (December 1933): 7–17.

230

Bibliography

———. “The Church Universal.” The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius 25 (September 1934): 10–15. ———. Churchly Joy: Orthodox Devotions for the Church Year. Translated by Boris Jakim. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008. ———. The Comforter. Translated by Boris Jakim. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004. Kindle e-book. ———. “Correspondences: The Incarnation and the Virgin Birth.” Sobornost 14 (June 1938): 32–34. ———. “Die christliche Anthropologie.” In Kirche, Staat und Mensch: RussischOrthodoxe Studien, Edited by Nikolaj Nikolaevič Alekseev. 209–255. Genf: Russisch-Orthodoxe Studien und Forschungen des Oekumenischen Rates für praktisches Christentum, 1937. ———. “Dogma and Dogmatic Theology.” In Tradition Alive: On the Church and the Christian Life in OurTime/Readings from the Eastern Church. Edited and Translated by Michael Plekon, 67–80. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003. ———. “Dying before Death.” In Sergius Bulgakov: A Bulgakov Anthology. Edited by James Pain and Nicolas Zernov, 22–27. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976. ———. “The Eucharist and the Social Problems of Modern Society.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius 21 (1933): 10–21. ———. The Friend of the Bridegroom: On the Orthodox Veneration of the Forerunner. Translated by Boris Jakim. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003. ———. “From Marxism to Sophiology.” Review in Religion 1, no. 4 (1937): 361–368. ———. “Gottesmutter und die Oekumenische Bewegung.” Sonderheft ‘Die Gottesmutter’ 6–7 (1931): 243–246. ———. “Hagia Sophia.” In Sergius Bulgakov: A Bulgakov Anthology. Edited by James Pain and Nicolas Zernov, 13–14. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976. ———. “Heaven: A Cave.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius 3 (1928): 14–18. ———. “The Hierarchy and the Sacraments.” In The Ministry and the Sacraments: Report of the Theological Commission Appointed by the Continuation Committee of the Faith and Order Movement Under the Chairmanship of the Right Rev. Arthur Cayley Headlam, C.H., D.D. Bishop of Gloucester. Edited by Roderic Dunkerley, 95–123. London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1937. ———. The Holy Grail & the Eucharist. Translated by Boris Jakim. Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Books, 1997. ———. “Hypostasis and Hypostaticity: Scholia to the Unfading Light.” Edited and Translated by Anastassy Brandon Gallaher and Kukota Irina. St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49, no. 1–2 (2005): 5–46. ———. “I Believe in One Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church (Conference Address).” The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius 3 (1931): 90–104. ———. Icons and the Name of God. Translated by Boris Jakim. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012. Kindle e-book. ———. Jacob’s Ladder: On Angels. Translated by Thomas Allan Smith. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010. ———. “Krest Bogomateri: Iz Razmyshlenij Strastoi Sedmicy.” Bogoslovskaia mysl’: Trudy Pravoslavnago Bogoslovskago Instituta v Parizhie 4 (1942): 5–24.

Bibliography

231

———. The Lamb of God. Translated by Boris Jakim. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008. Kindle e-book. ———. “A Memorandum Presented in October, 1935 to His Grace Metropolitan Evlogie by Professor Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov.” In Church of England, Council on Foreign Relations Documents O.C. 29A. Translated by Rev. F. N. C. Sergeant, 7–47. Lambeth Palace Library. ———. “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe v Bozhestve;” “Muzhskoe i Zhenskoe;” “Fragment 1;” “Fragment 2.” In S. N. Bulgakov: Religiozno-filosofskii put. Edited by Aleksei? Pavlovich Kozyrev, 343–395. Moscow: Russian Way, 2003. ———. O Sofii Premudrosti Bozhiei: Ukaz Moskovskoi Patriarkhii i dokladnye zapiski prot. Sergiia Bulgakova Mitropolitu Evlogiiu. Paris: YMCA Press, 1935. ———. “The Old and the New: A Study in Russian Religion.” The Slavonic Review 2, no. 6 (1924): 487–513. ———. “On Original Sin.” Journal of St. Alban and St. Sergius 7 (December 1929): 15–26. ———. “One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius 12 (1931): 17–31. ———. The Orthodox Church. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988. ———. “Outlines of the Teaching about the Church.” American Church Monthly 30, no. 6 (1931): 411–423. ———. “The Papal Encyclical and the Lausanne Conference.” The Christian East 9, no. 3 (1928): 116–127. ———. “The Passion’s Annunciation.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius 4 (1929): 22–25. ———. Philosophy of Economy: The World as Household. Edited and Translated by Catherine Evtuhov. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. ———. “The Question of the Veneration of the Virgin Mary at the Edinburgh Conference.” Sobornost 12 (1937): 24–28. ———. Relics and Miracles: Two Theological Essays. Translated by Boris Jakim. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011. Kindle e-book. ———. “Religion and Art.” In The Church of God: An Anglo-Russian Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, Edited by E. L. Mascall. 173–192. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1934. ———. “Revelation.” In Revelation. Edited by John Baillie and Hugh Martin. Translated by Oliver F. Clarke and Xenia Braikevitch, 125–180. London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1937. ———. Social Teaching in Modern Russian Orthodox Theology: The Twentieth Annual Hale Memorial Sermon. Evanston, IL: Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, 1934. ———. Sophia: The Wisdom of God: An Outline of Sophiology. Translated by Rev. Patrick Thomas. New York: Lindisfarne Press, 1993. ———. Sous les Remparts de Chersonèse. Translated by Bernard Marchadier. Geneva: Ad Solem, 1999. ———. “The Spirit of Prophecy.” Sobornost 19 (September 1939): 3–7. ———. “St. Peter and St. John.” In Sergius Bulgakov: A Bulgakov Anthology. Edited by James Pain and Nicolas Zernov, 79–85. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976. ———. Tikhiya Dumy. Paris: YMCA Press, 1976.

232

Bibliography

———. Unfading Light: Contemplations and Speculations. Edited and Translated by Thomas Allan Smith. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012. ———. “Vladimir Solov’ev i Anna Schmidt.” In Tikhie Dumy, 71–144. Edited by V.V. Sapov. Moskva: Respublika, 1918. ———. “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Worship.” Christian East 13 (1932): 30–42. Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second Edition. Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011. ———. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. Washington: United States Catholic Conference, 1965. “Declaration of Orthodox at Lausanne.” Christian East 8 (1927): 147–150. Dobbie-Bateman, A. F. Confidential Note for the Executive. Oxford UK: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Archives, 21 October 1933. Florensky, Pavel. The Pillar and Ground of Truth. Translated by Boris Jakim. Princeton: Princeton University, 1997. Florovsky, Georges. “Creation and Creaturehood.” In The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky: Creation and Redemption. Vol. 3, 43–78. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1976. ———. “The Ever-Virgin Mother of God.” In The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky: Creation and Redemption. Vol. 3, 171–188. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1976. ———. “Patristic Theology and the Ethos of the Orthodox Church.” In Aspects of Church History. Vol. 4, 11–30. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1989. Johnson, Elzabeth A. She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse. New York: Crossroad, 1992. ———. Truly Our Sister: A Theology of Mary in the Communion of Saints. New York: Continuum, 2006. Lossky, Vladimir. “Darkness and Light in the Knowledge of God.” In In the Image and Likeness of God, Edited by Thomas E. Bird and John H. Erickson. 197–198. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985. ———. “The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.” One Church 25, no. 6 (1971): 277–281. ———. “The Dormition of the Mother of God.” In The Meaning of Icons. Edited by Vladimir Lossky and Leonid Ouspensky, 213–217. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1982. ———. “An Explanation of the Brotherhood of St. Photius with Regard to the Judgement of the Patriarchate of Moscow on the Theology of the Archpriest S. N. Bulgakov.” In Church of England, Council on Foreign Relations Documents O.C. 29A. Translated by Rev. F. N. C. Sergeant, 1–6. Lambeth Palace Library. ———. In the Image and Likeness of God. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974. ———. “Mariology.” In The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement. Edited by C. G. Patelos, 187–198, Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978. ———. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Chruch. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998. ———. Orthodox Theology. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984. ———. “Panagia.” In The Mother of God: A Symposium by the Members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius. Edited by L. Mascall. Translated by E. Every, 24–36. Westminster: Dacre Press, 1949.

Bibliography

233

———. The Sophia Controversy: Protopriest S. Bulgakov’s ‘Report’ and the Meaning of the Decree of the Moscow Patriarchate. Translated by William Kevin Fisher. Paris, 2004. ———. Spor o Sofii: ‘Dokladnaia Zapiska’ prot. S. Bulgakova i smysl Ukaz Moskovskoi Patriarkhii. Paris: Brotherhood of St. Photius, 1936. ———. The Vision of God. Translated by Asheleigh Moorhouse. Clayton, WI: The Faith Press, 1963. Maximovitch, John (Saint). The Orthodox Veneration of the Birthgiver of God. Translated by Fr. Seraphim Rose. Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1996. Maximus the Confessor. St. Maximus the Confessor: The Ascetic Life: The Four Centureis on Christian Charity (Ancient Christian Writers). Translated by Polycarp Sherwood. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1955. Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow. “Declaration Concerning Professor S. N. Bulgakov.” In Church of England, Council on Foreign Relations Documents O.C. 29A, 1–19. Lambeth Palace Library. Palamas, Gregory. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. Translated by Robert E. Sinkewicz. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1988. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994. Dobbie-Bateman, A. F. Report of the Commission Appointed to Consider the Works of Archpriest S. N. Bulgakov. Oxford: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Archives. Scheeben, Matthias J. Mariology. 2 Vols. Translated by T. L. M. J. Geukers. London: B. Herder Book Company, 1946. Solov’ev, Vladimir. Lectures on Divine Humanity. Translated by Peter Zouboff. San Rafael, CA: Semantron, 2007. ———. The Meaning of Love. Edited by Thomas R. Bryer Jr. Translated by Thomas R. Bryer Jr. Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Press, 1985. ———. Russia and the Universal Church. Translated by Herbert Rees. London: The Cenetary Press, 1948. Weininger, Otto. Geschlecht und Charakter: Eine prinzipielle Untersuchung. Wien/ Leipzig: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1903.

Secondary sources Arjakovsky, Antoine. “The Sophiology of Father Sergius Bulgakov and Contemporary Western Theology.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49 (2005): 219–235. Aslanoff, Catherine. The Incarnate God: The Feasts of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary. Edited by Paul Meyendorff. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995. Averintsev, S. S. “‘Dve vstrechi’ O. Sergiia Bulgakova v istoriko-kul’turnom kontekste.” In S. N. Bulgakov: Religiozno-filosofskii put. Edited by Aleksei? Pavlovich Kozyrev. Moscow: Russian Way, 2003. www.rp-net.ru/book/articles/materialy/ bulgakov/averincev.php Bershtein, Evgenii. “The Notion of Universal Bisexuality in Russian Religious Philosophy.” In Understanding Russianness. Edited by Risto Alapuro, 210–231. London: Routledge, 2012.

234

Bibliography

Bianchi, Enzo. “The Holy Spirit in the Monastic Life.” Cistercian Studies Quarterly 37, no. 2 (2002): 153–166. Bilaniuk, Petro B. J. Studies in Eastern Christianity. Vol. 2. Toronto: The Ukraine Free University, 1981. Bird, Robert. “The Tragedy of Russian Religious Philosophy: Sergei Bulgakov and the Future of Orthodox Theology.” In Orthodox Christianity and Contemporary Europe. Edited by Jonathan Sutton and Wil van den Bercken, 211–228. LeuvenParis-Dudley: Peeters, 2003. Bobrinskoy, Boris. “The Church and the Holy Spirit in Twentieth Century Russia.” The Ecumenical Review 52, no. 3 (July 2000): 326–342. Breck, Lev. “Nearly a Century of Life.” In Discerning the Signs of the Times: The Vision of Elisabeth Behr-Sigel. Edited and Translated by Michael Plekon, 125– 136. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001. Burgess, Stanley. The Holy Spirit: Eastern Christian Traditions. Third Edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Press, 2000. Carlson, Maria. “Gnostic Elements in the Cosmogony of Vladimir Solov’ev.” In Russian Religious Thought. Edited by Judith Deutsch Kornblatt and Richard F. Gustafson, 149–167. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996. www. american-buddha.com/lit.Solov’ev.gnosticelements.htm/ Cioran, Samuel D. “The Affair of Anna N. Schmidt and Vladimir Solov’ev.” Canadian Slavonie Papers 16, no. 1 (1974): 39–61. ———. “Vladimir Solovyov and the Divine Feminine.” In Russian Literature Triquarterly. Edited by Car I. R. Proffer, 221–238. Ann Arbor: Ardis Publishers, 1972. Clowes, Edith W. “The Limits of Discourse: Solov’ev’s Language of Syzygy and the Project of Thinking Total Unity.” Slavic Review 55, no. 3 (1996): 552–566. Compton, Sophia Maria. More Glorious Than the Seraphim: Early Homilies and Feasts in Honor of Mary. Create Space Independent Publishing Platform, 2010. ———. “Sophia Compton on the Burning Bush and Bulgakov.” Live Journal 8 August 2008. www.livejournal.com/ Crouzel, Henri. Origen: The Life and Thought of the First Great Theologian. Translated by A. S. Worrall. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989. Crum, Winston Ferris. “The Doctrine of Sophia According to Sergius N. Bulgakov.” PhD diss., Harvard: Harvard University, 1965. ———. “Sergius N. Bulgakov: From Marxism to Sophiology.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 27 (1983): 3–25. Daley, Brian E. On the Dormition of Mary: Early Patristic Homilies. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1997. D’Costa, Gavin. “Queer Trinity.” In Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body. Edited by Gerard Loughlin, 269–280. Malden, ME: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Deane-Drummond, Celia. Christ and Evolution: Wonder and Wisdom. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009. ———. “Sophia, Mary and the Eternal Feminine in Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Sergei Bulgakov.” Ecotheology 10, no. 2 (2005): 215–231. ———. “Sophia: The Feminine Face of God as Metaphor for an Ecotheology.” Feminist Theology 16 (1997): 11–31. ———. “Where Streams Meet? Ecology, Wisdom and Beauty in Bulgakov, von Balthasar and Aquinas.” In Wisdom of Knowledge? Science, Theology and

Bibliography

235

Cultural Dynamics. Edited by Willem B. Drees and Hubert Meisinger, 108–125. London: T & T Clark International, 2007. Duff, Nancy J. “Mary Servant of the Lord.” In Protestant Perspectives on Mary: Blessed One. Edited by Beverly Gaventa, 59–70. London: Westminster John Know Press, 2002. Evdokimov, Michael. “Preface.” In Discerning the Signs of the Times: The Vision of Elisabeth Berh-Sigel, Edited by Sarah E. Hinlicky, ix–1. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001. Evtuhov, Catherine. The Cross and the Sickle. New York: Cornell University Press, 1997. Fiene, Donald M. “What Is the Appearance of Divine Sophia?” Slavic Review 48 (1989): 449–476. Gallaher, Brandon. “Antinomism, Trinity and the Challenge of Solov’evan Pantheism in the Theology of Sergij Bulgakov.” Studies in East European Thought 64 (2012): 205–225. ———. “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought.” Sobornost 24, no. 2 (2002): 24–55. ———. “Graced Creatureliness: Ontological Tension in the Uncreated/Created Distinction in the Sophiologies of Solov’ev, Bulgakov and Milbank.” Logos 47, no. 1–2 (2006): 163–190. ———. “There Is Freedom: The Dialectic of Freedom and Necessity in the Trinitarian Theologies of Sergii Bulgakov, Karl Barth and Hans Urs von Balthasar.” PhD diss., Oxford: Oxford University, 2010. Gavrilyuk, Paul L. “The Kenotic Theology of Sergius Bulgakov.” Scottish Journal of Theology 58, no. 3 (2005): 251–269. ———. “Universal Salvation in the Eschatology of Sergius Bulgakov.” Journal of Theological Studies 57 (2006): 110–132. Geffert, Bryn. “Anglicans and Orthodox between the Wars.” PhD diss., Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2003. ———. “The Charges of Heresy Against Sergii Bulgakov: The Majority and Minority Reports of Evlogii’s Commission and the Final Report of the Bishops’ Conference.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49, no. 1–2 (2005): 47–66. Gorodetzky, Nadejda. The Humiliated Christ in Modern Russian Thought. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1938. Grabbe, Protopresbyter George. “Toward a History of the Ecclesiastical Divisions within the Russian Diaspora.” Living Orthodoxy 14, no. 4 (July–August 1992): 28–39. Grant, Robert M. Irenaeus of Lyons. New York: Routledge, 1997. Graves, Charles. The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Sergius Bulgakov. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1972. Groberg, Kristi A. “The Eternal Feminine: Vladimir Solov’ ev’s Visions of Sophia.” Alexandria 1 (1991): 77–95. ———. “The Feminine Occult Sophia in the Russian Religious Renaissance: A Bibliographical Essay.” Canadian-American Slavic Studies 26, no. 1–3 (1992): 192–240. Gudziak, Borys A. “Towards an Analysis of the Neo-Patristic Synthesis of Georges Florovsky.” Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 41–42 (2000–2001): 197–238. Gustafson, Richard F. “Soloviev’s Doctrine of Salvation.” In Russian Religious Thought. Edited by Judith Deutsch Kornblatt and Richard F. Gustafson, 31–48. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996.

236

Bibliography

Jakim, Boris. “Sergius Bulgakov: Russian Theosis.” In Partakers of Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions. Edited by Michael J. Christensen, 250–258. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2007. Jelly, Frederick. Madonna: Mary in the Catholic Tradition. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998. Jenson, Robert W. Systematic Theology, Vol. 2: The Works of God. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Joos, A. “L’ Home et son Mystère: éléments d’ Anthropologie dans l’oeuvre du P. Serge Boulgakov.” Irénikon 45 (1972): 333–361. Kadic, Ante. “Vladimir Solov’ev and Bishop Strossmayer.” American Slavic and East European Review 20, no. 2 (1961): 163–188. Kiejzik, Lilianna. “Sergei Bulgakov’s Sophiology of Death.” Studies in East European Thought 62, no. 1 (2010): 55–62. Klimoff, Alexis. “Georges Florovsky and the Sophiological Controversy.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49 (2005): 67–100. Komonchak, Joseph A., Mary Collins and Dermot A. Lane. The New Dictionary of Theology. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1987. Konner, Melvin. Women Afterall: Sex, Evolution, and the End of Male Supremacy. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2015. Kornblatt, Judith Deutsch. “Solov’ev’s Androgynous Sophia and the Jewish Kabbalah.” Slavic Review 50, no. 3 (1991): 487–496. Kozyrev, Alexi. P. “Androgin ‘na piru bogov’.” In S. N. Bulgakov: Religioznofilosofskii put’, 333–342. Moscow: Russian Way, 2003. Krasicki, Jan. “‘The Tragedy’ of German Philosophy: Remarks on Reception of German Philosophy in the Russian Religious Thought (of S. Bulgakov and others).” Studies in East European Thought 62 (2010): 63–70. Krivoshein, Basil. “The Ascetic and Theological Teaching of Gregory Palamas.” In The Eastern Churches Quarterly: Index-Vol III 1938–9. Edited by Dom Bede Winslow. 193-214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1969. Kuvakin, Valery A., ed. A History of Russian Philosophy: From the Tenth Through the Twentieth Centuries. Vol. 2. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1994. Lavrin, Janko. “Vladimir Solovyev: His Teaching and Significance.” The Slavonic and East European Review 9, no. 26 (1930): 403–410. Legisa, Antonio. Divina Maternitas Mariae in Sergio Bulgakov. Matriti: Pontificum Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1953. Lewis, Clive Staples. The Problem of Pain. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996. Litva S. J., A. “La ‘Sophia’ dans la Creation selon la Doctrine de S. Boulgakof.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 16 (1950): 39–74. Livingston, James C. “Feminist Theology.” In Modern Christian Thought: The Twentieth Century. Second Edition, Vol. 2. Edited by James C. Livingston and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, 417–442. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006. Louth, Andrew. “Eucharist in Sergii Bulgakov.” Sobornost 27, no. 2 (2005): 36–56. ———. “Father Sergii Bulgakov on the Mother of God.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49 (2005): 45–64. ———. “Review of Modern Russian Theology-Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov: Orthodox Theology, by Paul Valliere.” Scottish Journal of Theology 56 (2003): 124–126. ———. “Sergii Bulgakov and the Task of Theology.” Irish Theological Quarterly 74 (2009): 243–257.

Bibliography

237

———. “Wisdom and the Russians: The Sophiology of Segius Bulgakov.” In Where Shall Wisdom Be Found. Edited by Stephen C. Barton, 169–181. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999. Lowrie, Donald. A. Saint Sergius in Paris: The Orthodox Theological Institute. London: SPCK Publishing, 1954. Marshall, Bruce. “Ex Occidente Lux? Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox Theology.” Modern Theology 20, no. 1 (January 2004): 23–50. Matich, Olga. “Androgyny and Russian Silver Age.” Pacific Coast Philology 14 (1979): 42–50. ———. “Androgyny and the Russian Religious Renaissance.” In Western Philosophical Systems in Russian Literature: A Collection of Critical Studies. Edited by Anthony M. Mlikotin, 165–175. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press, 1979. ———. Erotic Utopia: The Decadent Imagination of in Russia’s Fin de Siècle. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2005. ———. “The Symbolist Meaning of Love.” In Creating Life: The Aesthetic Utopia of Russian Modernism. Edited by Edited by Irina Paperno and Joan Delaney Grossman, 24-50. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994. McFarland, Ian A. “Developing an Apophatic Christocentrism: Lessons from Maximus the Confessor.” Theology Today 60 (2003): 200–214. Meehan, Brenda. “Wisdom/Sophia, Russian Identity, and Western Feminist Theology.” Cross Currents 46 (1996): 149–168. Meerson, Michael Aksionov. The Trinity of Love in Modern Russian Theology: The Love Paradigm and the Retrieval of Western Medieval Mysticism in Modern Russian Trinitarian Thought (from Solovyov to Bulgakov). Quincy: Franciscan Press, 1983. Meyendorff, John. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. New York: Fordham University Press, 1983. Mosolova, S. V. “Sophiology: A Human Reading of the Book of God.” Russian Studies in Philosophy (Spring 1995): 49–61. Naumov, Kliment ed. Bibliographie des oeuvres de Serge Boulgakov. Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves, 1984. Negrov, Alexander I. “Fr. Sergius Bulgakov (1871–1944): A Study in the Eastern Orthodox Hermeneutical Perspective.” HTS Theological Studies 58, no. 1 (2002): 250–263. Newman, Barbara. “Sergius Bulgakov and the Theology of Divine Wisdom.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 22, no. 1 (1978): 39–73. Nichols, Aidan. Wisdom from Above: A Primer in the Theology of Father Sergei Bulgakov. Leominster: Gracewing, 2005. Papanikolaou, Aristotle. “Orthodoxy, Postmodernity, and Ecumenism: The Difference That Divine-Human Communion Makes.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 42, no. 4 (2007): 527–546. Pares, Bernard. “Two Great Russian Liberals Peter Struve and Sergius Bulgakov.” The Slavonic and East European Review 43, no. 62 (1945): 141–145. Parmentier, Martien. “Greek Patristic Foundations for a Theological Anthropology of Women in Their Distinctiveness of as Human Beings.” Anglican Theological Review 84, no. 3 (2002): 555–583. Perry, Tim. Mary for Evangelicals. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006. Petersen, Rodney L. “Local Ecumenism and the Neo-Patristic Synthesis of Father Georges Florovsky.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 41, no. 2–3 (1996): 217–242.

238

Bibliography

Plekon, Michael. Hidden Holiness. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009. ———. Living Icons: Persons of Faith in the Eastern Church. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004. ———. “Social Theory Working with Theology.” Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 47, no. 1–2 (2004): 89–102. Pope Pius XII. Munificentissimus Deus: Defining the Dogma of the Assumption. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1950. Pyman, Avril. Pavel Florensky: A Quiet Genius. New York: Contnuum, 2010. Quesnell, Quentin. “Grace.” In The New Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Joseph A. Komonchak, 437–450. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1987. Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal and Hans Urs von Balthasar. Mary: The Church at Its Source. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005. Rose, Seraphim. “Introduction.” In The Orthodox Theology of Archbishop John Maximovitch. Edited by Seraphim Rose, 11–20. Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1996. Rosenthal, Bernice Glatzer. “The Nature and Function of Sophia in Sergei Bulgakov’s Prerevolutionary Thought.” In Russian Religious Thought. Edited by Judith Deutsch Kornblatt, 154–175. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996. ———. “The Search for a Russian Orthodox Work Ethic.” In Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia. Edited by Edith W. C. Lowes, Samuel D. Kassow, James L. West, 58–74. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991. Sauvé, Joseph Ross. “Georges V. Florovsky and Vladimir N. Lossky: An Exploration, Comparison and Demonstration of Their Unique Approaches to the Neopatristic Synthesis Florovsky and Lossky.” Durham, UK: PhD diss., Durham University, 2010. Scanlon, Michael J. “Anthropology.” In The New Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Joseph A. Komonchak, 27–41. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1987. Schipflinger, Thomas. Sophia-Maria: A Holistic Vision of Creation. York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser, 1998. Schultze S.J., Bernard. “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe.” In Maria, Études sur la Sainte Vierge. Edited by Hubert du Manoir S.J., 215–239. Paris: Beauchesne, 1961). ———. “Vladimirus Solov’ev de Immaculata Conceptione B. M. Virginis.” In Virgo Immaculata. Vol. 4, 223–246. Edited by Pontificia Adacemia Mariana Internationalis. Rome: Academia mariana internationalis, 1955. Rome, 1955. Seiling, Johnathan. “Assessments of the Recent Russian Sophiological Tradition.” Landshaft 2 (2008): 1–17. ———. “From Antinomy to Sophiology Modern Russian Religious Consciousness and Sergei Bulgakov’s Critical Appropriation of German Idealism.” Toronto: PhD diss., Toronto School of Theology, 2008. ———. “Kant’s Third Antinomy and Spinoza’s Substance in the Sophiology of Florenskii and Bulgakov.” Florensky Conference. Moscow, Russia, October 2005. Sergeev, Mikhail. “Divine Wisdom and the Trinity: A 20th Century Controversy in Orthodox Theology.” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 45 (2000): 573–582.

Bibliography

239

———. “The Religious-Philosophical Concept of Sophia: Its Genealogy and Evolution in Russian Thought in the 19th and 20th Centuries.” PhD diss., Philadelphia: Temple University, 1997. ———. Sophiology in Russian Orthodoxy: Solov’ev, Bulgakov, Losskii, and Berdiaev. Wales: Edwin Mellen Press, 2006. Shoemaker, Stephen J. The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. ———. “The Virgin Mary in the Ministry of Jesus and the Early Church According to the Earliest Life of the Virgin.” Harvard Theological Review 98, no. 4 (2005): 441–467. Siljak, Ana. “Between East and West: Hegel and the Origins of the Russian Dilemma.” Journal of the History of Ideas 62 (2001): 335–358. Sisto, Walter N. “Marian Dogmas and Reunion: What Can Eastern Catholics Teach Us about Catholic Ecumenism?” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 46, no. 2 (2011): 150–162. Slesinski, Robert. “Bulgakov’s Angelology.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49, no. 1–2 (2005): 183–202. ———. “Bulgakov’s Sophiological Conception of Creation.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 1 (2008): 443–454. ———. “Fr. Paul Florensky: A Profile.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 26, no. 1 (1982): 3–27. ———. “Fr. Paul Florensky New Bibliographical Entries.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 30, no. 3 (1986): 162–171. ———. “On the Ontological Significance of St. John the Forerunner.” 31 Communio (Spring 2004): 500–508. ———. Pavel Florensky: A Metaphysics of Love. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984. ———. “The Relationship of God and Man in Russian Religious Philosophy from Florensky to Frank.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 36 (1992): 217–235. ———. “Sergius Bulgakov on the Glorification of the Mother of God.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 73 (2007): 97–116. Smith, Thomas Allan. “Death and Life: Sergej N. Bulgakov’s Sophiological Perspective.” AAASS Annual Convention. New Orleans, LA, November 2007. ———. “Introduction.” In The Burning Bush: On the Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God. Translated and Edited by Thomas Allan Smith, xxi–xxiv. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009. ———. “Translator’s Introduction.” In Jacob’s Ladder: On Angels, vii–xiv. Edited by Thomas Allan Smith, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012. Stockl, Kristina. “Modernity and Its Critique in the 20th Century Russian Orthodox Thought.” Stud East Sur Thought 58 (2006): 243–259. Tataryn, Myroslaw. Augustine and Russian Orthodoxy: Russian Orthodox Theologians and Augustine of Hippo: A Twentieth Century Dialogue. Lanham, MD: International Scholarly Publication, 2000. ———. “Between Patriarch and Pope: The Theological Struggle of Sergius Bulgakov.” In In God’s Hands: Essays on the Church and Ecumenism in Honor of Michael A. Fahey SJ. Edited by Jaroslav Z. Skira and Michael S. Attridge, 137–159. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006.

240

Bibliography

———. “History Matters: Bulgakov’s Sophianic Key.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49 (2005): 203–218. Tavard, George H. The Thousand Faces of the Virgin Mary. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996. ———. Woman in Christian Tradition. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 1973. Theology Philosophy Center. www.theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk/ Trexler, Melanie E. “The World as the Body of God: A Feminist Approach to Religious Pluralism.” Dialogue & Alliance 21 (2007): 45–68. Ugolnik, Anthony. “Textual Liturgics: Russian Orthodoxy and Recent Literary Criticism.” Religion & Literature 22, no. 2–3 (1990): 133–154. Valliere, Paul. Modern Russian Theologians: Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000. Vogel, Jeffrey A. “How the Spirit Hides: Rixal Conceptions in Recent Orthodox Theology.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 5, no. 1 (2009): 99–112. Ware, Kallistos. “Introduction.” In Wisdom from Above: A Primer in the Theology of Father Sergei Bulgakov. vii-viii Leominster: Gracewing, 2005. ———. The Orthodox Way. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1995. ———. “The Sanctity and Glory of the Mother of God: Orthodox Approaches.” The Way, Papers of the 1984 International Congress of the Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary 51 (1984), 79–96. ———. “Tradition and Traditions.” In Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement. Edited by Nicholas Lossky, 1013–1017. Geneva: WCC Publications, 1991. Wilhelm, Joseph and Thomas B. Scannell. A Manuel of Catholic Theology: Based on Scheeben’s ‘Dogmatik’. London: Kegan, Paul, Trenck, Tubner and Company, 1909. Williams, A. N. The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Williams, Rowan. “General Introduction.” In Sergius Bulgakov: Towards a Russian Political Theology, 1–19. Edited by Rowam Williams. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. ———. A Margin of Silence: The Holy Spirit in Russian Orthodox Theology. Québec: Lys Vert, 2008. ———. “The Theology of Vladimir Nikolaievich Lossky: An Exposition and Critique.” PhD. diss., Oxford: University of Oxford, 1973. Young, Pamela Dickey. “Women in Christianity.” In Women and Religious Traditions. Second Edition. Edited by Pamela Dickey Young, 163–192. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Zander, Lev A. Bog i Mir. Paris: YMCA Press, 1948. Zernov, Nicholas. The Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. Zouboff, Peter. “Introduction.” In Lectures on Divine Humanity. vii-xvi Translated by Peter Zouboff. Revised and Edited by Boris Jakim, San Rafael, CA: Semantron, 2007. Zwahlen, Regula M. Das revolutionäre Ebenbild Gottes: Anthropologien der Menschenwürde bei Nikolaj A. Berdjaev und Sergej N. Bulgakov. Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2010. ———. “Different Concepts of Personality: Nikolaj Berdjaev and Sergej Bulgakov.” Studies in East European Thought 64 (2012): 183–204.

Index

Adam 122, 138, 190n366; “allhumanity of” 20n21; all-man 90, 91, 97, 109n109, 109n130; The Burning Bush 76; creation of Eve 79, 212, 221n122; the fall 88, 89, 90, 150; guilt 87–88; hypostatization 89–91, 108n97, 108n105, 108n107, 109n117, 109n133, 133, 145; microcosm 109n118; naming of animals 89; New 90, 91, 119, 127, 133, 134, 165, 226; Old 91; purity 65; sin 69n31, 87–92, 95, 97–98, 128, 129, 134, 162, 201, 226; Solov’ev 70n48 Agapē 30 Alfeyev, Hilarion 13 All-man (all-humanity) 90, 91, 97, 109n109, 109n130, 133, 145, 152 All-Russian Church Council 10 Angelic habit 175n43 Angels 22n50, 41, 42, 43, 46n34, 50n100, 64, 73n108, 74n123, 110n136, 114, 140, 181n192, 187n309; Adam’s fall 150; archangel 183n230; choir 147; co-angelicity of man 73n107, 152; Christ’s lack of guardian 150; courts 147, 148, 150, 150; Gabriel 50n95, 98, 122, 149; guardian 22n50, 46n34, 64, 73n107, 147–149, 150, 152, 172, 181n198, 182n214; Hosts 135; humans like 78, 149, 152; icons 72n85; Incarnation 152; in/of the flesh 63, 65; Jacob’s vision 149; and Mary 146–150; Mary’s judgment 70n56; Mary’s lack of guardian149, 150, 172; saints 73n107; service 146, 147 Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) 189n334; Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ 1, 4

Annunciation 36, 50n100, 98, 106n67, 114, 115, 122, 123, 127, 130–135, 142, 149, 152, 167, 168, 177n93, 189n336, 201, 206, 216n35; feast 38, 177n91, 216n35 Aphraates 105n63, 193–194 Apocalypse of John, The 13 apophatism 45n15, 193, 194, 196, 214n21, 227 ARCIC see Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission Ark of the Covenant 123, 124 Athans, Mary C. 1 “Athos Affair, The” 20n25 Augustine 92, 108n95, 128 Autobiographical Notes 19n17 Basil, St. 50n100, 196 Behr-Sigel, Elisabeth 5, 191, 192, 203, 212, 223n140, 226; Bulgakov 209–211, 219n94, 222n128; Mary is model for women 220n101; Mary is “typos of a Christ-bearing (christophoros) humanity” 173n2; Ministry of Women in the Church 220n101, 222nn128–129, 223n134, 223n138; spiritual bisexuality 210 Bely, Andrei 16 Benedict XVI 49n81 Berdiaev, Nicholas 16 Bershtein, Evgenii 15, 26n88, 76 Bilaniuk, Petro B. J. 114, 173n3, 217n57 Bird, Robert 215n24, 215n26 Body of Christ 13, 46n33, 64, 83, 91, 100, 145, 152, 153, 154, 182n214, 184n237, 216n42 Boehme, Jacob 17, 25n84 Boff, Leonardo 107n87, 207 Bulgakov, Sergius: background 9–13; Catholic hypnosis 11, 27; death 3, 5,

242

Index

13, 150, 191, 200; hypnosis 9, 11, 27; marxist 9 (see also marxism); religious experience and Raphael’s Madonna 13–15; St. Sergius Theological Institute 11–12 Bride of the Lamb, The 3, 6, 222n128; “all-humanity of Adam” 20n21; bisexuality 77; creativity 86; “creaturely Sophia” 141; death 17n1, 22n50; donum superadditum 119–20; energies 27–28; final judgment 13–14, 42, 53, 67n3, 160–161, 162–163, 180n168; God 14, 119; Holy Spirit 164, 165, 199; Mary is pneumatophoric hypostasis 113–114; Mary is “Wife and Bride of the Lamb” 67n2; Mary’s relationship to the Church 120; mercy of Mary 162–163; ontological characteristics of the Church 182n227; Protestantism 185n273; Revelation 22 67n2, 155; spiritual bisexuality 77, 103n19 Burning Bush, The 3, 5, 6, 12, 35, 50n98, 51n107, 53–54, 55, 65, 173n3, 180n171, 219n81, 222n129, 225, 228; Adam 76; “all-humanity of Adam” 20n21; Catholicism 14; difference with Unfading Light 67n6; ending 67n2; Eve 221n122; Glorification of the Mother of God 217n55; grace and nature 97; icons 23n67, 40, 126–127, 130; historical scholarship 50n96; Holy Spirit 164, 165; human androgyny 76; Immaculate Conception 116, 119, 173n1; Last Judgment 67n3, 160; liturgy 37, 40, 42, 197; Mary is pneumatophoric hypostasis 41, 51n104, 113–114; Mary’s humanity 38; pneumatological adoptionism 174n29; salvation 51n104; sexuality 17; sophianic Mariology 55, 141, 225; virginity 126–130 Catholic hypnosis 9, 11, 27 Catholicism 2, 11, 12, 14, 21n30, 53, 56, 111n158, 117, 119, 120, 140, 185n273 Catholicity 19n12, 214n16 Christian Socialism 10 Christology 2, 4, 21n38, 53, 60, 90, 156, 157–158, 170, 171, 198, 210, 216n42, maimed 4, 158, 227; Nestorian 35, 47n65;

Christ’s humanity 35, 38, 66, 90, 156, 157–158, 169, 174n29, 204 Chrysostom, John 2, 50n100, 64, 127, 173n10, 176n66 Church, Mary as 152–156 Church Fathers 20n24, 27, 37, 44, 46n35, 54, 100n1, 104n46, 105n63, 175n60, 182n226, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 211, 213n5, 225, 227 Church of England 127 Cioran, Samuel D. 25n87 Co-Redemptrix 113, 202, 225 Comforter, The 5, 6, 101n4, 102n18, 113, 170, 178n114, 190n366; Mary is pneumatophoric hypostasis 113–114; spiritual bisexuality 77 Compton, Sophia 166 Comte, August 68n21 Conception of St. Anne, The 41 Council of Chalcedon 35, 47nn59–60, 121, 158 Council of Ephesus 27, 35 Creaturely Sophia 29, 30–31, 34, 36, 43, 46n33, 70n46, 74n135, 89, 90, 96, 97, 98, 100, 108n107, 113, 141–143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 154, 163, 172, 182n214, 226 Crum, Winston 86, 166, 179n151 Cyril of Alexandria 35, 47n59, 47n63, 176n66 Damned 162–164, 187n306 Deane-Drummond, Celia 24n72, 76, 204, 218n60, 220n103 Dei Verbum 49n81 de Lubac, Henri 96, 120, 174n15 Devil 132, 187n309 Diaspora 116, 191, 212n1 Discipleship 165–171; Jesus Christ as Spirit-bearer 168–171; Mary’s path as divine motherhood 165–168 Divine dyad 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 91, 100, 101, 104n46, 133, 154, 165, 169, 170, 199 Divine-humanity 31, 46n33, 47n46, 104n38, 112n188, 121, 135, 182n227 Divine motherhood 36, 114, 116, 122, 131, 132, 134, 137, 160, 165–168, 177n98, 178n117, 189n330, 226 Divine Sophia 29, 30–31, 33, 43, 61, 62, 68n17, 70n46, 74n135, 83, 86,

Index 98, 138, 141, 142, 147, 149, 153, 164, 194 Dogma of the Immaculate Conception 41, 53, 54, 59, 87, 94, 114, 116, 117, 195, 216n35 donum superadditum 119, 174n32 Dormition 7n9, 40, 41, 50n96, 114, 119, 135–137, 139, 140, 144, 149, 152, 168, 178n125, 179n155, 196, 210, 217n52, 217n54 Dormition of Our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, The 176n71, 178n116 Dostoevsky, Fyodor 18n10; The Idiot 143 Dread judgment 53, 138, 160–162, 163, 164, 167, 187n309, 188n313; see also final judgment; last judgment Dualistic anthropologies 204, 207–209; see also Gender: dualism Eastern Church 21n30 Eckhart, Meinster 17 Ecumenical movement 1, 3, 4, 6n1, 12, 114, 184n252, 227; Mary 155–156 Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary, The 1 Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Temple, The feast 176n71 Espin, Orlando 207 Evdokimov, Paul 107n90, 222n130 Eve 43, 58, 76, 89, 97, 98, 108n105, 109n130, 129, 145, 201, 221n122; creation of 79, 212, 221n122; New 70n48, 94, 118, 119, 122, 133, 134, 142, 154, 162, 165, 172, 226; relationship 90 Evtuhov, Catherine 13, 17n1, 18n10, 68n20 Faith and Order Commission 7n10, 12, 155, 158, 182n226 Fall, the 88, 89, 90, 101n4, 108n107, 110n133, 137, 145, 150, 218n75 Feast of Entrance into the Temple of Our Lady The Most Holy Theotokos 122 feminist perspective 5, 6, 87, 191–192, 203–212, 220n103, 220n108, 220n111, 221n120, 227; dualistic anthropologies 207–209; idealization of Mary 204–207; see also Behr-Sigel, Elisabeth; Johnson, Elizabeth Feuerbach, L. 18n8

243

Fichte, Johann: Gottlieb IchPhilosophie 32–33 Fiene, Donald: “What Is the Appearance of Divine Sophia?” 7n9 Filaret 54, 67n8 Final judgment 13, 42, 114, 152, 160, 161, 172, 180n168, 188n320, 196 Florensky, Pavel 5, 11, 16, 25n83, 29, 55, 60–65, 68n14, 68nn16–17, 71n71, 71n77, 107n89, 225; angels and saints 73n107; beauty 62–64, 66; bisexual interpretation 72n83; Bulgakov 60–61, 66–67; By the Watershed 71n70; “Dispencer of God’s Grace” 73n120; Holy Spirit is Sophia 63–64, 66, 67, 73nn96–97; human heredity 110n153; Immaculate Conception 65, 66, 216n42; iconography 72n88, 140; John the Baptist and Christ’s friendship 182n217; Mary 61–65; Pillar and Ground of Truth 24n80, 60, 61, 62, 71n74, 72n85; theological aesthetics 62; three acclamations 62–64, 66; Trinity 72n78; “Two Worlds” 61; virginity 63, 66–67, 72n84, 73n101, 73n103, 127 Florovsky, Georges 2, 5, 12, 22, 49n81, 70n46, 198, 202, 211, 219n78, 219n85; “neo-patristic movement” 191, 192, 193, 212n2, 213n11, 214n16; virginity 216n42; Ways of Russian Theology 193 Freud, Sigmund 16 Friend of the Bridegroom, The 5, 12, 104n38, 111n157, 116, 151 From the Memories of the Heart 11 Gabriel (angel) 50n95, 98, 122, 149 Gallaher, Brandon 13, 45n15, 69n28, 184n252 Gavrilyuk, Paul L. 215n24 Gender 24n74, 24n80, 25n82, 34, 75, 77, 78, 79, 81, 85, 86–87, 107n88, 188n312, 198–199, 212, 227; axiomatic 103n32, 199; binary 210; Church Fathers 100n1, 194–195, 200; dualism 207, 218n71; equality 209; essentialism 4, 15, 57, 58, 76, 148, 199, 201, 204, 208; female 65, 203; genderlessness 103n23, 208; God 208, 209; Holy Spirit 194, 198, 208, 209, 218n60; hypostasis

244

Index

190n358, 201, 208; image of God 200–201; language 170–171; Mary 210; Orthodox tradition 103n33, 203; roles in the Church 223n134; sin 209; Solov’ev 69n40; Son 198, 209, 218n60; stereotypes 220n96; Trinity 201–202, 211; versus sex 221n120; see also feminist perspective Gippius, Zinaida 16 Goberg, Kristi 15 God is love 30, 33–34, 207 God-for-us 28, 100 Godhumanhood 10, 20n20, 30, 31, 45n21, 46n33, 56, 80, 90, 93, 100, 110n148, 113, 117, 118, 121, 153, 164, 165, 211 God-in-Himself 44n5, 45n14, 46n35, 100 Grace 95–100 Graves, Charles 81, 101n4, 112n182, 186n275, 188n317 Greek Church 140, 193 Gregory of Nyssa 103n32, 176n66, 194, 198, 200 Gregory of Tours 176n66 Guardian angels 22n50, 46n34, 64, 73n107, 147–149, 150, 152, 172, 181n198, 182n214; Christ’s lack of 150; Mary’s lack of 149, 150, 172 Hagia Sophia 11 Hegel, George Wilhelm Friedrich 18n8, 19n12, 47n60 Holy Spirit 4, 36, 38, 47n46, 73n97, 102n14, 103n21, 104n38, 104n46, 105n54–55, 105n58, 109n128, 110n156, 111n179, 136, 151, 178n114, 179n147, 182n227, 184n252, 197, 222n125; Adam 89; Annunciation 131, 134; bisexuality 77, 106n87; The Bride of the Lamb 160, 164, 165, 199; The Burning Bush 164, 165; creation 80–81, 112n182, 113; deification 137; dove 140; dread judgment 138, 160–162, 188n320; gender 194, 195, 198, 199, 208, 209, 210, 218n60; grace 96, 100, 112n186, 139, 140, 216n35, 228; hypostatizes Sophia 34; image of God as of the Son and Holy Spirit 81–87; Incarnation 106n68; is Sophia 63–64, 66, 67, 73nn96–97; Jesus Christ 114, 133,

135, 180n171; kenosis 164; Mary 36, 41, 42, 43, 50n100, 54, 55, 62–63, 66, 67, 73n96, 94, 95, 98–99, 100, 106n68, 115–116, 118, 119, 123, 124, 127, 129, 130–132, 135, 138, 140, 142–43, 144, 145, 146, 149, 155, 164, 165–172, 173n3, 173n7, 174n29, 175n53, 188n317, 188n320, 190n367, 194–195, 199, 201, 202–204, 206, 207, 221n122, 222n130, 225–227; matter 180n181; monasticism 173n4; motherhood 36, 105n63; Parousia 188n316; Pentecost 134–135, 169; power 35, 204; prayer 186n295; prophecy 189n343; saints 179n145; salvation 5, 51n104, 75, 178n108, 204, 205; Sophia 62–63, 98, 113, 142–43, 144; “Temple of the” 123, 124, 154, 175n53; virginity 63; wisdom 140; see also Spirit bearer Humanity, Christ’s see Christ’s humanity; Creaturely Sophia “Hypostasis and Hypostaticity” 20n24, 27, 89, 177n105 Hypostatization 4, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35–36, 43, 44n2, 44n7, 46n33, 57, 61, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82–83, 84, 85, 92, 99, 103n22, 105n55, 108n103, 108n107, 110n136, 110n156, 111n172, 115, 116, 121, 124, 130, 137, 138, 141–142, 146, 147, 148, 149, 154, 156, 157, 159, 165, 166, 169–171, 173n14, 177n105, 178n126, 179n154, 185n259, 190n360, 201, 207, 209, 227; Adam 89–91, 108n97, 108n105, 108n107, 109n117, 110n133, 133, 145 Hypostasis 34, 36, 43, 46n33, 46n43, 66, 81, 99, 102n19, 105n54, 108n103, 167, 177n105; active 65, 83, 199; all- 77, 147, 149; Christ’s 177n105; connecting 84; divine 141, 171, 177n105; dominant 83; fourth 33, 67n6; gender 190n358, 201; Holy Spirit 100, 115, 135, 137, 138, 144, 161, 169, 189n336, 206; human 77, 86, 89, 91, 93, 109n133, 115, 137, 141, 145, 148, 149, 152, 161, 165, 166, 169, 172, 182n214, 196, 199–200, 208, 221n124, 225, 226, 227; inactive 83; male 65, 171, 199; Mary’s 115, 142, 149, 169, 190n360; nature 201; omni-causative

Index 80; pneumatophoric 4, 35, 36, 40, 41, 50n95, 75, 98, 100, 113–124, 131, 132,133, 135, 137, 139–140, 143, 144, 146, 149, 154, 161, 155, 174n29,196, 225, 226 ; primary 80, 85, 169, 184n237; second 190n360, 199; Son 169; Sophia 149, 150; third 82–83, 188n316, 190n360, 199 Icons 2, 14, 15, 23n64, 37–38, 40, 48n79, 49n80, 54, 64, 68n17, 72n88, 120, 135, 144, 145, 152, 159, 180n164, 181n185; Annunciation 130; The Burning Bush 23n67, 126–127, 130; Christ 138, 150, 179n139; deisis 150, 151, 181n210; John 152; Last Judgment 42, 161; Novgorod 68n16, 72n85; Orthodox 42, 126, 150; Sophia 43, 68n21, 72n85, 140–141; The Mother of God 50n99; Russian 56, 60 Icons and Iconstasis 14 “The Icons and Its Veneration” 45n10 Idealization of Mary 59, 192, 204–207 Image of God 5, 31, 65, 75–79, 92, 93, 96, 97, 100, 100n1, 102n14, 104nn38–39, 110n133, 136, 147, 157, 158, 170, 185n273, 200–202, 204, 208, 209, 210, 218n71, 221n124; as the image of the Son 80–81; as image of the Son and Holy Spirit 81–87; imago Dei 31, 32 Immaculate Conception 41, 53, 54, 59, 66, 87, 94–95, 111n157, 114, 115–122, 172, 173n1, 185n273, 195, 196, 202, 205; donum superadditum 119, 174n32;Florensky 65, 216n42; Solov’ev 59–60; Lossky 216n35 Jacob’s Ladder 5, 21n37, 76; angelology 22n50, 46n34, 73n107, 146; death 17n1; sexuality 77–78 Jakim, Boris 96, 103n23, 179n138, 213n5 Joanna, Sister 22n45 Johnson, Elizabeth 5, 87, 107n88, 204–208, 209, 211, 212n3, 221n121; She Who Is 106n87; Truly Our Sister 6, 107n87, 192, 220n111 John the Baptist 72n85; Christ’s friendship 181n209, 182n217; Immaculate Conception 116; lack of guardian angel 150; and Mary 111n157, 126, 150–152; veneration 151; virginity 176n80

245

Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius 12 Jung, Karl 16, 76; Marriage as a Psychological Relationship 101n5 Karl Marx as a Religious Type 18n8 Karlovtsy Synod 12, 191, 202, 213n14 Kenosis 27, 30, 45n22, 45n25, 82–83, 105n51, 106n69, 132, 147, 148, 164, 166n105 Khomiakov, Aleksei 19n12 Kimball, Virginia: “Liturgical Illuminations” 6n2 Krivoshein, Basil 44n2 Lamb of God, The 5, 12, 34, 47n65 Last judgment 42, 67n3, 188n320; see also dread judgment; final judgment Legisia, A.: Divina Maternitas Mariae in Sergio Bulgakov 3 Leo XIII: Aeterni Patris 174n32 Lewis, C. S.: The Problem of Pain 90 lex orandi lex credendi 36, 38, 126, 225 Lonergan, Bernard 96, 198 Lossky, Vladimir 5, 12, 44n2, 191, 192–199, 211, 214n16, 214n18, 214n21, 215n26, 216n35, 217n53, 217n55, 219n85; apophatism 196, 214n21; criticism of Bulgakov’s teaching 199–202, 215n24; “The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception,” 195, 216n35; Essai sur la Théologie Mystique de L’ Église d’Orient 193; gender 218n60; The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church 200, 213n8, 216n33; “necessary silence” 216n45, 217n52; Orthodox Church 200; “Panagia,” 195; sexuality 104n44, 218n71; “Sophia Affair” 192; Sophiology 213n6, 213n9; Spor o Sofii 22n43, 168, 192–193, 199, 214n18, 218nn70–71 Louth, Andrew 3, 36, 48n78, 95, 104n46, 162, 174n15, 176n70, 215n25 Lowrie, Donald 48n78 Luther, Martin 186n275 Mariology 53–67; angels 146–150 (see also angels); Annunciation 36, 38, 50n100, 98, 106n67, 114, 115, 122, 123, 127, 130–135, 142, 149,

246

Index

152, 167, 168, 177n91, 177n93, 189n336, 201, 206, 216n35; Bulgakov’s 113–173; Christ’s humanity 35, 38, 66, 90, 156, 157–158, 169, 174n29, 204; Church 152–156; creaturely Sophia 29, 30–31, 34, 36, 43, 46n33, 70n46, 74n135, 89, 90, 96, 97, 98, 100, 108n107, 113, 141–143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 154, 163, 172, 182n214, 226; damned 162–164, 187n306; discipleship 165–171; Dormition 7n9, 40, 41, 50n96, 114, 119, 135–137, 139, 140, 144, 149, 152, 168, 178n125, 179n155, 196, 210, 217n52, 217n54; The Dormition of Our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary 176n71, 178n116; dread judgment 53, 138, 160–162, 163, 164, 167, 187n309, 188n313; Florensky 60–65, 66–67 (see also Florensky, Pavel); Glorification 140–165; glorified body 137–140, 145; glory and her miraculous intercessions 144–146; icon of Sophia 68n21, 140–141; Immaculate Conception 41, 53, 54, 59–60, 65, 66, 87, 94–95, 111n157, 114, 115–122, 172, 173n1, 185n273, 195, 196, 202, 205, 216n35, 216n42; John the Baptist 111n157, 150–152; last judgment 42, 67n3, 188n320; method 156–157; Mother of the Church 115, 152; Parousia 29, 30, 31, 141, 144, 147, 150, 153, 164–165, 166, 188n313, 188n316; pneumatophoric hypostasis 4, 35, 36, 41, 75, 98, 100, 113–122, 131, 133, 135, 137, 139–140, 143, 144, 146, 149, 154, 161, 155, 174n29, 196, 225, 226; Solov’ev 56–60, 65–66 (see also Solov’ev, Vladimir; immaculate 65; Pentecost 80, 83, 84, 85, 99, 106n68, 114, 115, 131, 134–35, 153, 164, 166, 167, 169, 188n316, 201; sophianic 55, 68n16, 225; sophianic beauty 143–144; St. Joseph 12, 114, 124–126. 175n57, 176n66; temple virgin 40, 50n95, 122–124, 132; veneration Mary 2, 3, 4, 41, 51n107, 54, 155, 157, 158–160, 165, 197, 202, 208, 212, 220n111, 221n121, 225, 227; virginity 55, 61, 62–63, 64, 66–67, 72n84, 73n101, 73n103,

114, 124, 126–130, 175n55, 176n83, 176nn70–71, 216n42 Marx, Karl 9, 18n8 Marxism 9, 13, 14, 18n6, 18n8 Matich, Olga 15, 24n74, 57 Maximovitch, John 5, 191, 202–203, 212n2, 219nn83–84; The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God 202, 219n81, 219n85 Maximus the Confessor 88, 108n94, 200; Life of Mary 217n54; Life of the Virgin 197, 217n54 Meehan, Brenda 76, 220n108 Merezhkovsky, Dmitrii 16, 188n320 Metropolitan Evlogy 11, 12, 21n40, 193, 213n14 Metropolitan of Moscow 12, 192 Meyendorff, John 44n2, 71n77 Milbank, John 76 Miracles 14, 20n27, 130, 138, 139, 145, 146, 172, 179n138, 179n145, 179n155, 180n183, 181nn184–185; miraculous intercessions 144–146 Mother of the Church 115, 152 Multi-hypostatic entity 90, 91, 92, 110n136, 159 “Muzhskoe I Zhenskoe” 15, 17 77 “Muzhskoe I Zhenskoe v Bozhestve” 15, 17, 77, 103n22, 190n358 Myths 16, 24n80, 40, 50n97, 69n33, 108n100, 223n141; cosmogonic 88; Eden 108n97 Nativity 7n9, 140, 156 “neo-patristic movement” 191, 192, 193, 212n2, 213n11, 214n16 New Adam 90, 91, 119, 127, 133, 134, 165, 226 New Testament Church 125, 126, 153 Nichols, Aidan 3, 32, 50n95, 76, 99; Wisdom from Above 46n33, 105n53 Old Testament Church 125, 153 One Mediator, The 1 Origen 71n77, 92, 137–138, 194 Orthodox 1, 2, 3, 5, 6nn1–3, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19n15, 19n17, 20n25, 24n71, 27, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 44, 45n15, 49nn81–82, 53, 55, 56, 59, 61, 64, 67, 68n20, 70n47, 71n74, 72n77, 74n123, 78, 79, 80, 95–96, 102n14, 103n33, 107n90, 111n158, 114, 115, 116–117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 139, 140, 151, 153, 156, 157,

Index 159, 163, 166, 168, 171, 172, 173n2, 177n91, 178n125, 180n164, 182n226, 186n275, 200, 202, 203, 209, 210, 211, 212n1, 214n16, 214n18, 215n25, 216n35, 219n81, 219n84; Anglican- 12; Christianity 11, 14, 37, 70n47, 88, 94, 127, 137, 191, 196, 206, 207, 216n35; consciousness 218n61; definition 12; Eastern 2; feminism 191, 192; iconography 42, 48n79, 150; neopatristic criticisms 192–199; non- 13, 37, 150, 215n24, 217n53; sexual ethics 15; sinlessness 50n98; thinkers 17, 211; worship 212 Orthodox Church 1, 2, 4, 6n1, 11, 13, 19n12, 21n34, 38, 54, 60, 65, 71n61, 74n140, 95, 126, 127, 138, 141, 153, 155, 159, 168, 175n60, 183n229, 184n252, 186n283, 200, 210; criticism of Bulgakov 192–199; neo-patristic criticisms 192, 197, 198 Orthodox Church, The 104n38, 186n275, 186n278, 222n125, 222n129 ousia 23n69, 32, 33, 47n46, 81, 141 Palamas, Gregory 27–28, 44n2, 44n5, 45n14, 46n35, 111n157, 195, 200, 215n25 Panagia 94, 139 Papanikolaou, Aristotle 214n21 Parousia 29, 30, 31, 141, 144, 147, 150, 153, 164–165, 166, 188n313, 188n316 Paschal Mystery 83, 84, 99, 113, 131, 168, 204 “Passion’s Annunciation, The” 177n93 Passivity 33, 41, 44n2, 58, 59, 61, 67, 70n56, 87, 169; active 85–86, 143, 170; feminine 151, 199, 203; humility 189n348; of reception 85–86 Pentecost 80, 83, 84, 85, 99, 106n68, 114, 115, 131, 134–35, 153, 164, 166, 167, 169, 188n316, 201 Perry, Tim 157, 185n268, 186n286; Mary for Evangelicals 1 Personhood 32, 58, 89, 208, 210, 221 Philosophy of Economy, The 10, 20n21, 20n23, 86, 88–89 Pius IX 60, 118, 196; Ineffabilis Deus 59, 116 Pius XII 121, 123

247

Plato 24n80 Pneumatophoric hypostasis 4, 35, 36, 41, 75, 98, 100, 113–122, 131, 133, 135, 137, 139–140, 143, 144, 146, 149, 154, 161, 155, 196, 225, 226; Scheeben 174n29; temple virgin 40, 50n95, 122–124, 132 Prophecy 131, 167, 185n261, 189n343 Protection of Our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, The feast 176n71 Protoevangelium of James 122, 126 Rahner, Karl 96, 119 Raphael 25n87; Madonna 13–15, 23n64 Relics 138–139, 179n145 Revelation 29, 34, 38, 49n85, 125 ROCOR see Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia Rose, Seraphim 219n84 Rosenthal, Bernice 76, 79 Rozanov, Vasilii Vail’evich 25n83, 56, 102n14, 218n71; People of the Moonlight 16–17, 25n82 Russian Orthodox Church 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20n25, 68n20, 140, 143, 191, 192, 217n53; “All Russian council of the Russian Orthodox Church” 54 Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) 12, 191, 202, 211, 219n81 Russian Religious Renaissance 5, 9, 15–17, 24n71, 24n74, 60, 75, 78, 164, 188nn319–320, 192, 195, 199, 212, 225 Saints 13, 38, 41, 54, 63, 64, 67, 74n142, 85, 86, 95, 95, 98, 114, 116, 125, 138–139, 145, 146, 149, 152, 153, 154, 155, 159–160, 164, 167, 168, 169, 172, 179n145, 181n185, 188n312, 191, 198, 199, 206, 207, 210, 212n1; angels 73n107; veneration 159, 186n286 Salvation 3, 42, 51n104, 58, 63, 64, 80, 83, 84, 93–94, 99, 113, 123, 130–131, 135–136, 144, 146, 159, 160, 163, 166, 167, 168, 179n151, 187n310, 195, 205, 206; economy 85, 86, 98, 117, 136, 156, 161, 198, 199, 204, 209, 225; grace 201; history 4, 5, 15, 29, 50n99, 56, 60,

248

Index

61, 75, 95, 110n148, 121, 124, 125, 126, 128, 131, 133, 134, 141, 142, 143, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 162, 165, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173n10, 185n261, 186n275, 199, 202, 210, 212, 220n111, 226, 227, 228 Satan 98, 111n166, 132, 187n309, 209 Sauvé, Joseph Ross 200, 201, 214n16 Scheeben, Matthias 119, 120,173n1, 174n29 Schelling 193 Schleifer, Aliah: Mary the Blessed Virgin of Islam 1 Schultze, Bernard 3; “La Mariologie Sophianique Russe” 68n16, 70n56, 73n103 Scripture 20n24, 29, 32, 37, 38–39, 40, 42–43, 46n35, 49n81, 49n85, 65, 94, 116, 117, 120, 121, 123, 125, 128, 132, 141, 147, 152, 162, 182n225, 196, 199, 202, 206, 216n45, 219n85, 220n108, 227 Second Duma 10, 19n15 Sergeev, Mikhail 31 Sergius, Metropolitan 102n14, 193, 202, 213n6, 218n61, 218n71 Sexuality 5, 17, 24n72, 24n74, 26n88, 67, 72n83, 75, 76, 77–78, 79, 87, 101n5, 102n14, 103n22, 127, 128, 129, 173, 191, 194, 199, 203, 205, 210, 218n71, 223n138, 225; Russian Religious Renaissance 9, 15–16; see also spiritual bisexuality Shoemaker, Stephen 217n54 Silver Age 18n10, 24n71, 60 Sin: Adam 69n31, 87–92, 95, 97–98, 128, 129, 134, 162, 201, 226; Bulgakov’s doctrine 87–95; gender 209; original 87–95 Sister Joanna 22n45 Slavophiles 9, 18n10, 19n12, 24n80, 72n87 Slesinski, Robert 3, 29–30, 151 Smith, T. Allan 23n52, 103n23, 175n47, 213n5 Sobornost 10, 19n12; Sobornost 12 Socialism 10, 19n13; see also Christian Socialism Sologub, Fedor 16 Solov’ev, Vladimir 5, 9, 10, 18n10, 25n84, 31, 61, 70n50, 225; Bulgakov 65–66; Catholicism 21n30; gender 69n40, 190n363; humankind 107n89;

Immaculate Conception 59–60, 116; Lectures on Godhumanhood 20n20, 69n33; The Meaning of Love 16, 23n69; and the Mother of God 56; natural humanity 70n43; Orthodoxy 68n20; Russia and the Universal Church 56, 59, 69n41, 70n47, 70n70; sophianic Mariology 23, 23n69, 55, 56–60, 68n16, 68n21, 70n47, 70n56, 71n59, 74n128, 140, 141; World-Soul 69n33 Sophia 55, 78 Sophianic beauty 143–144 Sophiology 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 20n24, 22n43, 23n69, 25n87, 26n88, 27–28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 44, 44n2, 45n21, 46n33, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61–62, 66, 67n6, 70n46, 73n103, 78, 93, 96, 113, 117, 141, 145, 147, 191, 193, 194, 202, 204, 207, 212n1, 213n6, 213nn8–9, 215n25, 219n78, 222nn128–130, 225 Sophiology of Death 17n1, 22n50 “soul of the world” 3, 4, 75, 113, 114, 141, 149, 226, 227 Spirit bearer 168, 173n4; Jesus Christ 168–171, 194; Mary 4, 13, 15, 74n142, 114, 145, 165, 168, 173n2, 190n360, 194, 226 Spiritual bisexuality 15, 17, 78, 80, 85, 106n87, 203, 208, 212, 221n124; Behr-Sigel 210; The Bride of the Lamb 77, 103n19; The Comforter 77; “Muzhskoe I Zhenskoe” 77; “Muzhskoe I Zhenskoe v Bozhestve” 77; Unfading Light 75–76, 78–79 (mention St. Gregory of Nazianzus 126 St. Jerome 175n60, 176n66 St. Joseph 12, 114, 124–126. 175n57, 176n66 “St. Peter and St. John” 12 St. Photius 198 St. Seraphim 13, 22n45, 65, 74n142, 85, 166 St. Sergius Theological Institute 11–12, 48n78, 53, 213n14 Sunday of the Holy Ancestors, The 41 Tataryn, Myroslaw 198 Temple virgin 40, 50n95, 122–124, 132 Theological anthropology and Mary 75–100; grace doctrine 95–100; image of God 75–79; image of God

Index as image of the Son and Holy Spirit 81–87; image of God as the image of the Son 80–81; sin doctrine 87–95 Theological dialectics 34–36 Theotokos 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 15, 35, 36, 41, 42, 44n7, 50n100, 51n104, 59, 62, 93, 98, 115, 122, 124, 129, 134, 135, 140, 141, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 165, 166, 172, 175n53, 185n259, 225 Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, The feast 176n71, 178n116 Third Testament 164, 188nn319–320 tradition: liturgical 40–42, 140; living 38, 39, 49n81, 49n85 Trihypostaseity 32, 33, 64, 80, 104n38, 104n46, 110n136 Trinity 3, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36, 44n5, 44n9, 45n25, 46n33, 57, 61, 67n6, 72n78, 75, 78, 80, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 104n38, 104n46, 105n54, 105n58, 105n66, 106n67, 110n136, 112n186, 127, 130, 134, 141, 142, 143, 147, 150, 154, 159, 164, 169, 170, 178n114, 194, 198, 200–201, 202, 209, 211, 215n24

249

165, 197, 202, 208, 212, 220n111, 221n121, 225, 227; relics 138–139; saints 159, 186n286 Virginity 55, 61, 62–63, 64, 66–67, 72n84, 73n101, 73n103, 114, 124; The Burning Bush 126–130; Florovsky 216n42; historical 127, 129; perfect, 176n83; perpetual 63, 124, 175n55, 176nn70–71; spiritual 63, 73n101, 127, 128, 129; synonymous with holiness and sanctity 176n80 Vogel, Jeffery A. 164, 188n317

Unfading Light 20n23, 53–54, 213n5; “all-humanity of Adam” 20n21; Boehme 25n84; death 17n1; Eve 221n122; human androgyny 16, 76; individualism 185n262; myth 50n97; Schmidt 25n86; Solov’ev’s ideas 10; Sophia 10, 33; Sophiology 20n24, 22n50, 67n6, 78; spiritual bisexuality 75–76, 78–79

Ware, Kallistos 3, 49n81, 94; “The Neo-Patristic Synthesis” 6n3; The Orthodox Way 114 Weininger, Otto: Sex and Character 16 Western Christian theology 2, 13, 88, 116, 191 Williams, A. N.: The Ground of Union 44n5 Williams, Rowan 84; A Margin of Silence 216n45, 218n75; Sergii Bulgakov 6n4; “The Theology of Vladimir Nikolaiev Lossky” 213n9 Wohlmann, Avital: “Why the Silence Today Regarding Mary’s the Jewishness of Mary of Nazareth?” 1 womanhood 58, 223n134 Word of God 39, 47n63, 49n81, 49n84, 54, 149, 216n45 World-Soul 56–57, 58, 59, 66, 69n31, 69n33, 70n46, 70n56, 74n135

Valliere, Paul 19n15, 49n81, 96 Veneration: John 151; Mary 2, 3, 4, 41, 51n107, 54, 155, 157, 158–160,

Zander, Lev 13, 212n1; Bog i Mir 3 Zouboff, Peter 21n30 Zwahlen, Regula 76, 218n61