Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev

My presentation will consist of three parts. In the first part I will attempt to describe the contemporary situation of Christianity vis-à-vis the secular world, with special reference to the predominant trends in the Western system of elementary, secondary and higher education. In the second part I will try to formulate certain principles around which, I believe, the system of Christian theological education should be shaped in the 21^st century. In the third part I intend to speak about patristic theology and why the church Fathers are important for the 21^st century students of Christian doctrine and morality.

Christianity in a ‘post-Christian’ world

Our epoch is frequently described as ‘post-Christian’. This description is misleading in many ways. With regard to the number of believers, Christianity is today the largest of the world religions, and occupies a firmly established place in society in many European countries. In a number of Eastern European countries a rebirth of faith is taking place, with thousands of churches and hundreds of monasteries being restored or re-built, seminaries being opened, and millions of people finding their way to God. It would seem that there should be no cause of worry over the fate of Christianity.

However, if we look at the situation more widely and attempt to look into the future, the prospects for Christianity indeed do not look so bright. In some areas of the world we can observe tendencies which, it seems to me, may cause serious concern. For the first time in many decades one can speak of a significant weakening of traditional Christianity in Latin and South America, where hundreds of thousands of believers are becoming members of sects, new religious movements and various charismatic groups. In North America scandals caused by the immoral actions of clergymen have dealt such a serious blow to the Church that entire dioceses are forced to declare bankruptcy.

Alarming processes are also taking place in Europe, the cradle of Western Christianity. In many Western European countries there is a catastrophic lack of candidates for the priesthood, who must be imported from Eastern Europe, Asia or South America. The number of young people who consider themselves Christians and attend church is drastically falling. According to statistics, for the first time in many centuries the number of people in Vienna belonging to the Catholic Church has fallen to less than 50 per cent. The demonstrative exit from the Church has become a normal phenomenon, and some former believers even ask to be given a certificate claiming that the Sacrament of baptism conferred on them is annulled.

The traditional Christian view of the family no longer dominates in Europe. Large families have become a rarity: more and more frequently we see families with no children, one child, or families with one parent. The Christian population of Europe is steadily shrinking, accompanied simultaneously by the dramatic growth of the number of European Muslims.

A decline of Christianity in some Western countries is to a significant degree due to the unprecedented onslaught of militant secularism, which is claiming ever more impressive victories in Western society, declaring itself the only legitimate world-view on which the new world order both in and outside Europe should be built. To drive religion out of the social sphere and relegate it to the outskirts of human existence, limiting it exclusively to the private life of individuals: this is the program which adherents of modern militant secularism are attempting to realize. We are witnesses of a consistent, systematic and conscious assault of secularism on the remains of Western Christian civilization, the desire to rid oneself of it once and for all. This assault is taking place to the drum beat of the adherents of democracy and liberal values, to loud cries over the defence of the rights and freedoms of the citizen. However, in doing so the main right of the person: that of openly confessing one’s faith in God, is being questioned; the right of societies to order their lives based on the religious world-view is under threat.

The assault of militant secularism is acquiring new dimensions in the context of globalization processes that affect an ever increasing number of people of all classes throughout the world. Globalization is a multi-dimensional, multi-faceted and multi-level process affecting both the world as a whole as well as separate countries and regions, both the entire human community and individual people. It has left its mark on politics and the economy, morals and law, science and art, education and culture. Globalization has affected practically all areas of human endeavour, with the possible exception of one: religion. Today only religion is consciously resisting the desperate attack of globalism, entering into an unequal battle for the defence of those values that it considers to be of fundamental importance and which globalization is challenging. And only religion is able to oppose the ideology of globalism with its own system of spiritual and moral tenets based on the centuries-old experience of generations formed in the pre-globalization era.

The ‘dictatorship of relativism’ is another force challenging Christianity, of which Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger spoke several days before his election to the Papacy. He noted that relativism ‘does not recognize any limitations and proposes the human ego and its desires as the final criterion’. Relativism has become the dominating ideology in elementary, secondary and higher education in most educational institutions in Europe. From childhood on pupils are inculcated with the idea that there are no absolute moral norms and values, that religion is something from the past, that the main value for the person should be his own prosperity and comfort. The liberal philosopher Francis Fukuyama writes with unconcealed satisfaction about this tendency in education:

 

Modern education stimulates certain tendencies to relativism, i.e. a teaching according to which all value horizons and systems are relative, tied to a place and time, and in which no words are the truth… The last person at the end of history knows that there is no reason to risk one’s life for the sake of a great goal, since he considers history to be full of useless battles which people fought with each other to decide if one should be a Christian or a Muslim, Protestant or Catholic.

The reality, however, witnesses to the fact that for millions of people on this planet it does indeed matter if they are a Christian or Muslim, Protestant or Catholic. And many of them are ready not only to ‘risk their lives for the sake of a great goal’, but, if necessary, to give their lives for their faith, as it occurred with tens of thousands of martyrs and confessors of the faith in Russia in the 20^th century. Their heroism, as well as the religious revival of the last 20 years in Russia and some other countries of Eastern Europe, unprecedented in scale, bears witness to the fact that the religious phase in the development of humanity is not yet over and that faith is able to inspire people in our time, just as it did centuries ago.

Rejecting those spiritual and moral values that lie at the foundations of the traditional religious world-view, secularism has dealt a blow not so much to religious communities as to the human community itself, above all to families and children. It is not just the traditional notions of the indissolubility of marriage, marital fidelity and child-bearing that have been undermined: in Europe these notions are undergoing a systematic mocking and humiliation by liberals and democrats of all colours.  Instead of marital fidelity ‘free love’ is propagated, same-sex partnerships are being equated with marital union, and child-bearing is opposed by ‘family planning’. The destruction of the institution of the family and child-bearing is an extremely serious crime against humankind, for which liberals and secularists will have to bear responsibility before history.  The rejection of traditional family ethics lies at the very roots of the serious demographic crisis in Europe, which has overtaken many European countries and which is threatening the Christian population with extinction.

Totalitarian sects and so-called new religious movements are one more real missionary challenge for the Church in the 21^st century, to which we are called to give an answer. Modern-day sectarians make use of the latest methods to control peoples’ minds, as well as the newest means of propaganda and recruitment. Many sects have massive financial assets at their disposal. The uncontrolled activity of ‘new religious movements’ is causing serious harm their peoples’ health, tramples on basic human rights, creates a threat to the family, society and state, and challenges traditional values. Claiming to be the only ones in the right, sect leaders, concealing their true aims, very often hide behind the mask of various religious, political, educational, cultural and other slogans.

Islamic fundamentalism is one more challenge for traditional Christianity. The rules of political correctness imposed on the majority of Westerners do not allow one to speak of the ‘Islamic threat’. More frequently we hear that Islam is a peaceful religion, and that only separate extremists and terrorists attempt to use it for their inhumane aims. But while such talk is going on, in Afghanistan the death penalty is being imposed for conversion to Christianity, in Indonesia Muslims burn Christian churches, and in Kosovo, before the very eyes of the entire world community and in the presence of the so-called ‘peacekeeping forces’, the systematic and barbaric destruction of ancient Christian holy places is taking place. Liberal politicians are calling Muslims to integrate into Western society, but many Muslims are not making any attempts to do so, and the most militant imams are calling for a jihad against the entire Western civilization.

Theological education

I will now turn to the issues related to the theological education and will say a few words about theology as it was understood by church Fathers. According to a classical definition by Evagrius, ‘If you are a theologian, you will pray truly. And if you pray truly, you are a theologian’. In traditional Orthodox understanding, theology is not a science, or a scholarship, or an academic exercise. To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship.

Theology ought to be inspired by God: it ought not to be the word of a human person, but the word of the Spirit pronounced by human lips. A true Christian theologian is one who is able to be silent until the Holy Spirit touches the strings of his soul. And it is only when the human word falls silent and the word of the Spirit emerges from his soul, that true theology is born. From this moment ‘a lover of words’ is transformed into ‘a lover of wisdom’, a rhetorician into a theologian.

According to St Gregory Nazianzen, not everyone can be a theologian, but only the one who purifies himself for God. Not all can participate in theological discussions, but only those who are able to do it properly. Finally, not every theological concern can be discussed openly:

 

Discussion of theology is not for everyone, I tell you, not for everyone - it is no such inexpensive and effortless pursuit... It must be reserved for certain occasions, for certain audiences, and certain limits must be observed. It is not for all men, but only for those who have been tested and have found a sound footing in study, and, more importantly, have undergone, or at the very least are undergoing, purification of body and soul[1]

Theology, according to St Gregory, is nothing other than the ascent to God. Gregory uses the traditional image of Moses on Mount Sinai to emphasize that the true theologian is only someone who is able to enter the cloud and encounter God face to face. In this multidimensional, allegorical picture Moses symbolizes the person whose theology emerges from the experience of an encounter with God. Aaron represents someone whose theology is based on what he heard from others; Nadab and Abihu typify those who claim to be theologians because of their high position in the church hierarchy. But neither acquaintance with the experience of others nor an ecclesiastical rank gives one the right to declare oneself a theologian. Those Christians who purify themselves according to God’s commandments may take part in a theological discussion; the non-purified ought not.

Thus, purification of soul is a necessary precondition for practising theology. Its central point is summed up in the following dictum: ‘Is speaking about God a great thing? But greater still is to purify oneself for God’.[2] Here, purification (katharsis) is not opposed to theology: rather, theology is that ascent to the peak of Mount Sinai which is impossible without purification.

What is required for practising theology is not so much intellectual effort, neither external erudition, nor wide reading, but first of all humility and modesty. According to Gregory, humility is not to be found in someone’s external appearance, which may often be deceitful, and perhaps not even in how someone is related to other people, but in his attitude to God. The humble, in Gregory’s judgment, is not he who speaks but little about himself, or who speaks in the presence of a few but rarely; not he who ‘speaks about God with moderation, who knows what to say and what to pass over in silence’.[3]

In other words, everyone can be a good Christian, but not everyone is able to investigate the depths of doctrine, where many things should be covered by an apophatic silence. Everyone can contemplate on matters of theology, but not everyone can be initiated into its mysteries. All Christians must purify themselves for God: the more a person is purified, the more discernible are the words of the Spirit in his mouth. True theology is born out of a silent and humble standing before God rather than out of speculations on theological matters.

We can see that this understanding is radically different from what we normally mean by ‘theology’. One of the tragic consequences of the divorce between Christian theory and praxis, between faith and knowledge, is that nowadays knowledge about theological subjects does not necessarily presuppose faith. You can be a theologian and not belong to any church community; in principle, you do not need to believe in God to receive a theological degree. Theology is reduced to one of the subjects of human knowledge alongside with chemistry, mathematics or biology.

Another divorce which needs to be mentioned is that between theology and liturgy. For an Orthodox theologian, liturgical texts are not simply the works of outstanding theologians and poets, but also the fruits of the prayerful experience of those who have attained sanctity and theosis. The theological authority of liturgical texts is, in my opinion, higher than that of the works of the Fathers of the Church, for not everything in the works of the latter is of equal theological value and not everything has been accepted by the fullness of the Church. Liturgical texts, on the contrary, have been accepted by the whole Church as a ‘rule of faith’ (kanon pisteos), for they have been read and sung everywhere in Orthodox churches over many centuries. Throughout this time, any erroneous ideas foreign to Orthodoxy that might have crept in either through misunderstanding or oversight were eliminated by church Tradition itself, leaving only pure and authoritative doctrine clothed by the poetic forms of the Church’s hymns.

Several years ago I came across a short article in a journal of the Coptic Church where it stated that this Church had decided to remove prayers for those detained in hell from its service books, since these prayers ‘contradict Orthodox teaching.’ Puzzled by this article, I decided to ask a representative of the Coptic Church about the reasons for this move. When such opportunity occurred, I raised this question before one Coptic metropolitan, who replied that the decision was made by his Synod because, according to their official doctrine, no prayers can help those in hell. I told the metropolitan that in the liturgical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church and other local Orthodox Churches there are prayers for those detained in hell, and that we believe in their saving power. This surprised the metropolitan, and he promised to study this question in more detail.

During this conversation with the metropolitan I expressed my thoughts on how one could go very far and even lose important doctrinal teachings in the pursuit of correcting liturgical texts. Orthodox liturgical texts are important because of their ability to give exact criteria of theological truth, and one must always confirm theology using liturgical texts as a guideline, and not the other way round. The lex credendi grows out of the lex orandi, and dogmas are considered divinely revealed because they are born in the life of prayer and revealed to the Church through its divine services. Thus, if there are divergences in the understanding of a dogma between a certain theological authority and liturgical texts, I would be inclined to give preference to the latter. And if a textbook of dogmatic theology contains views different from those found in liturgical texts, it is the textbook, not the liturgical texts, that need correction.

Even more inadmissible, from my point of view, is the correction of liturgical texts in line with contemporary norms. Relatively recently the Roman Catholic Church decided to remove the so-called ‘antisemitic’ texts from the service of Holy Friday. Several members of the Orthodox Church have begun to propagate the idea of revising Orthodox services in order to bring them closer to contemporary standards of political correctness. For example, the late Archpriest Serge Hackel from England, an active participant in the Jewish-Christian dialogue, proposed the removal of all texts from the Holy Week services that speak of the guilt of the Jews in the death of Christ.[4] He also maintains that only a ‘superficial and selective’ reading of the New Testament brings the reader to the conclusion that the Jews crucified Christ. In reality, he argues, it was Pontius Pilate and the Roman administration who are chiefly responsible for Jesus’ condemnation and crucifixion.

This is just one of innumerable examples of how a distortion of the lex credendi inevitably leads to ‘corrections’ in the lex orandi, and vice versa. This is not only a question of revising liturgical tradition, but also a re-examination of Christian history and doctrine. The main theme of all four Gospels is the conflict between Christ and the Jews, who in the end demanded the death penalty for Jesus. There was no conflict between Christ and the Roman administration, the latter being involved only because the Jews did not have the right to carry out a death penalty. It seems that all of this is so obvious that it does not need any explanation. This is exactly how the ancient Church understood the Gospel story, and this is the understanding that is reflected in liturgical texts. However, contemporary rules of ‘political correctness’ demand another interpretation in order to bring not only the Church’s services, but also the Christian faith itself in line with modern trends.

The Orthodox Tradition possesses a sufficient number of ‘defence mechanisms’ that prevent foreign elements from penetrating into its liturgical practice. I have in mind those mechanisms that were set in motion when erroneous or heretical opinions were introduced into the liturgical texts under the pretext of revision. One may recall how Nestorianism began with the suggestion to replace the widely-used term Theotokos (Mother of God) with Christotokos (Mother of Christ), the latter was seen as more appropriate by Nestorius. When this suggestion was made, one of the defence mechanisms was activated: the Orthodox people were indignant and protested. Later, another mechanism was put into operation when theologians met to discuss the problem. Finally, an Ecumenical Council was convened. Thus, it turned out that a dangerous Christological heresy, lurking under the guise of a seemingly harmless liturgical introduction, was later condemned by a Council.

To rediscover the link between theology, liturgy and praxis, between lex orandi, lex credendi and lex vivendi would be one of the urgent tasks of theological education in the 21^st century. The whole notion of a ‘theology’ as exclusively bookish knowledge must be put into question. The whole idea of a ‘theological faculty’ as one of many other faculties of a secular university needs to be re-examined. The notions of ‘non-confessional’, ‘unbiased’, ‘objective’ or ‘inclusive’ theology as opposed to ‘confessional’ or ‘exclusive’ must be reconsidered.

Rediscovery of Patristic theology

One of the phenomena of the 20^th century’s theological quest was a rediscovery of the significance of the church Fathers. According to Fr Georges Florovsky,

 

…patristic literature is not only the static treasure of Tradition… The works of the Fathers are for us a source of creative inspiration, an example of Christian courage and wisdom. It is a school of Christian thought and philosophy… an eternal world of never-ageing experience and spiritual vision… It is only in this world that the straight and true way towards the new Christian synthesis, which modern times long for, lies open. The time has come to ‘church’ our minds and to resurrect for ourselves the sacred and grace-bearing foundations of ecclesial thought. [5]

Florovsky was to be the chief impetus behind the ‘patristic renaissance’ in Russian 20^th-century theology: his were the key concepts for the interpretation of the patristic legacy, in particular the idea of the ‘neo-patristic synthesis.’ The latter, according to Florovsky, ‘should be more than just a collection of patristic sayings or statements; it must truly be a synthesis, a creative reassessment of those insights which were granted to the holy men of old. It must be patristic, faithful to the spirit and vision of the Fathers, ad mentem Patrum. Yet it also must be neo-patristic, since it is to be addressed to the new age, with its own problems and queries.’[6]

The idea expressed by Florovsky has inspired many not only among the Russian diaspora but also among Western scholars. I would like here to pay tribute to those theologians who, though themselves not belonging to the Eastern theological tradition, have nevertheless succeeded in uncovering the heritage of the great Fathers of the Orthodox Church, both for themselves and for the Western world. Among them Irénée Hausherr, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, Jean Daniélou, Walther Völker, Werner Jaeger, Johannes Quasten, John Kelly, Gilles Prestige, Christoph Schönborn, Gabriel Bunge and Sebastian Brock should be mentioned. The ‘patristic renaissance’ of the 20^th century would have been impossible without these persons, true zealots of theological scholarship, who in their works were able to reach across the confessional barriers separating them from the Orthodox tradition.

The 20^th century has contributed much to the study of the patristic legacy, thanks to new critical editions of the works of the Fathers and to scholarly studies produced by the above-mentioned scholars. But has the ‘neo-patristic synthesis’ of which Florovsky dreamed been achieved? I do not think so. There was an objective reason for this: in the 20^th century the time for such a synthesis had not yet come. It may yet be achieved if we do not abandon the way outlined by the theologians of the 20^th century. They achieved a mighty, qualitative leap forward and succeeded in breaking down the wall between the Christian East and West, laying the foundations for a truly ‘Catholic’ theology (meaning a theology which, following Fr John Meyendorff, includes and organically assimilates the theological heritage of East and West in all its diversity).[7] But another qualitative leap forward is needed in order to build the neo-patristic synthesis upon this foundation, a leap that we, who have entered the 21^st century, can make.

It is necessary to find a new approach to the Fathers, one which would allow us to see the patristic heritage more comprehensively. I am deeply convinced that a fundamental and indispensable element of such a new approach should be the logically consistent use of a contextual method of patristic reading. Allow me to deliberate on the main characteristics of this method in more detail.

The contextual method presumes that one takes as a starting point the fact that the Fathers of the Church lived and wrote in different ecclesial, theological, cultural, historical and linguistic contexts. The patristic tradition is not one single ‘patch’ that the Fathers worked. It has many poles and comprises many historical, linguistic and cultural layers. As far as dogma is concerned, for instance, the Greek and Latin traditions were already quite different from one another in the 3^rd century (it is sufficient to compare Origen’s and Tertullian’s teachings on the Trinity to confirm this). Differences deepened in the 4^th and 5^th centuries (compare the Trinitarian theology of the Great Cappadocians and of St Augustine). Several centuries later, significant divergence in the field of ascetic practice and in mysticism became apparent (compare Symeon the New Theologian with Francis of Assisi, or Gregory Palamas with Ignatius Loyola). The impression received is that the two traditions were predestined from the very outset to develop along different lines. This is not the same as saying that the 11^th-century schism between East and West was altogether unavoidable; after all, for an entire millennium both traditions had lived side by side within the bosom of the one Church.

A particular place belongs to the different national traditions of patristic writing – the Syriac, Ethiopian, Coptic, Arabic, Armenian and Georgian. Comparing the theological thinking and language of Ephrem the Syrian and Gregory of Nyssa, two representatives of the same faith, sharing the same spirituality, and near contemporaries yet living in totally different cultural and linguistic contexts, we cannot but notice the enormous difference between them. Gregory’s language and manner of thinking turn towards Greek culture; Ephrem, on the other hand, lives in the world of Semitic Christianity; Gregory expresses the richness and diversity of Christian Tradition in the figurative categories of Greek mythology, whilst Ephrem appeals to the characteristic imagery of the Palestinian-Aramaic tradition. As befits a Greek, Gregory is more rational and disposed to definitions, while Ephrem is more emotional and expressive.

It is important to remember that, in earlier times, there were no strong channels of communication between the different theological traditions. Aside from some rare exceptions, theologians from one tradition neither knew nor understood the exponents of other traditions. In the first millennium, Latin authors were virtually unknown to the Hellenic East; in the West, only a selected number of Greek authors (in particular Dionysius the Areopagite) were read. Neither East nor West knew the Syriac tradition (except for one or two writers such as Ephrem the Syrian and Isaac of Nineveh). The situation differed for those who had received Christianity together with a fully-shaped theological system, such as the Slavs: from the very beginning they were oriented towards Greek patristic writings. Here, however, we can speak more of a transplantation of Greek culture to Russian soil rather than relationship between two independent traditions or their interpenetration.

Until the very end of the Middle Ages the world was disposed in such a way that only very few people succeeded in breaking free from the limits of their own linguistic and cultural contexts. Comparative or cross-contextual study was beyond the reach of the ancients. Indeed, aside from some extremely rare exceptions, the early Fathers were scarcely able to experience fields of learning other than their own theological, linguistic and cultural context. Phenomena that were proper to other theological systems traditions were judged through the parameters of one’s own tradition; there was no all-encompassing vision.

I shall permit myself one more quotation from the ‘theological testament’ of Florovsky, as preserved for us by one of his students:

 

Salvation has come ‘from the Jews’ and has been propagated in the world in Greek idiom. Indeed, to be Christian means to be Greek, since our basic authority is forever a Greek book, the New Testament. The Christian message has been forever formulated in Greek categories. This was in no sense a blunt reception of Hellenism as such, but a dissection of Hellenism. The old had to die, but the new was still Greek – the Christian Hellenism of our dogmatics, from the New Testament to St Gregory Palamas, nay, to our own time. I am personally resolved to defend this thesis, and on two different fronts: against the belated revival of Hebraism and against all attempts to reformulate dogmas in categories of modern philosophies, whether German, Danish or French (Hegel, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Bergson, Teillhard de Chardin)...[8]

I believe that Florovsky, had he lived to the beginning of the 21^st century, would have lost the war he wished to wager, at least on the ‘first front.’ In the first half of the 20^th century the revival of what Florovsky calls ‘Hebraism’ – the revival of interest for the Semitic tradition (in its Jewish, Aramaic, Syriac or Arabic form) – was only beginning to gain momentum. Florovsky could not have anticipated that in the late 20^th century a whole corpus of writings by St Isaac the Syrian[9] would be discovered, which has significantly enriched our understanding of this great 7^th-century mystical writer. Florovsky could not have known the many Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopian and Armenian writings that were to be published in the monumental series Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (currently counting over 500 volumes). These have fundamentally reversed the hitherto dominant understanding of the patristic heritage as the sum of the Patrologia Graeca and the Patrologia Latina. Only towards the end of the 20^th century did it become obvious that, in addition to these traditions, there existed a Patrologia Orientalis as well, the thriving world of ‘Oriental’ theological traditions, deeply authentic in form and content. Then it became clear that Christianity could not be reduced to Byzantinism.

As for Florovsky’s ‘second front,’ while it is indeed dangerous to attempt to ‘reformulate’ dogmas in the categories of contemporary philosophical tendencies, some of these trends – first of all Heidegger’s and Kierkegaard’s existentialism, mentioned by Florovsky – have of themselves indicated the departure of Western thought from Renaissance anthropocentrism and the rationalism of the Enlightenment, thereby clearing the way for a return to a truly Christian Catholic theological tradition. Just as ancient philosophy in the time of Clement of Alexandria and of Origen, so existentialist philosophy may serve – and for many has already served – as a ‘pedagogue’ towards Christ. Existentialism can be ecclesialized in the way that ancient philosophy was ecclesialized by the Greek Fathers in the 3^rd and 4^th centuries. Moreover, the conceptual language of existentialism, which doubtless is closer to persons today than that of the ancient philosophy employed by the Greek Fathers, may be used, if not for the formation of a ‘neo-patristic synthesis,’ then at least for the interpretation of its main elements in the language of our contemporaries. Finally we can not ignore the fact that the theology of the Fathers is, as Florovsky has worded it so well, itself ‘existential’ in essence, in opposition to all ‘essential’ theologies not founded upon a real experience of communion with God.[10]

To conclude these reflections on the ‘neo-patristic synthesis’ I would like to say a few words about the significance of the church Fathers for the 21^st century theological education.

Studying the Fathers, both Eastern and Western, provides students of theology with an opportunity to better understand the tradition to which they belong, to assume ownership of the treasure of Christian Tradition.

Knowledge of the Fathers will prevent students of theology from losing their way amidst the multitude of currents in modern philosophy and world-views, from getting ‘carried away by strange teachings’ (Heb. 13:9). It will help them to reconnect their studies with their spiritual life, to establish their personal relationship with God. Contrary to the prescriptions of such modern teachings as psychoanalysis, the counsels of the Fathers radiate a healthy spirit, based as they are on a sound understanding of the human mind, the need to combat one’s sinful tendencies and to exercise good deeds. The counsels of the Fathers, I believe, are far more universal that the fundamental postulates of Freudianism and apply to people living in the most diverse cultural and temporal contexts.

The works of the Fathers never lose their relevance, since they deal with questions to which the answers are decisive for the present and future of humanity. It has become fashionable to speak of a ‘post-Christian’ era, of a decline of interest in traditional Christianity among young people, of ‘Christianity without a future.’ Most radical forecasts predict the disappearance of Christianity from the religious world map in the third millennium, its absorption by Islam.

May I express my hope that these forecasts will be found wrong, that Christians will stand firm together for the preservation of their doctrine, their Church and their Tradition. From the example of Russia and many other ex-communist countries we see that the Christian faith is by no means a ‘relic of the past,’ that thousands and millions of people, including youth, are returning to the ‘patristic faith.’ Ii is my hope that a Christian spring is yet to come. I want to believe that the 21^st century will witness a revival of Christianity, and that new impetus will be given to theological education, which will be transformed from a purely intellectual exercise into a true and all-embracing rediscovery of the very meaning of Christianity as a way to spiritual transformation and eternal salvation.