St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 55:4 (2012) 415-436

T h e N a m e o f G o d C o n f l ic t
in O r t h o d o x T h e o l o g y
Paul Ladouceur

I. The Conflict over the Name o f God

On Mount Athos and in Russia prior to World War I a major
theological conflict took place over a doctrine known as Namepraising or Name-glorification (onomatodoxy, from the Greek;
in Russian, imenoslavie). The Name-of-God conflict has its
origins in 1907 with the publication of the book in Russia On the
Mountains o f the Caucasus, by Archimandrite Hilarin (18451916).1Archimandrite Hilarions quite unsystematic book includes
dialogues with his Elder, Desiderius, development of certain themes
by Hilarin, descriptions of the Caucasus Mountains, citations
intended to support Hilarions assertions, Gospel commentaries,
and selected letters. Like the popular anonymous Pilgrims Tale (the
Russian pilgrim, 1884), the book is in the Russian mystical and
hesychastic tradition, and its main subject is the Jesus Prayer: Lord
Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Hilarions
teaching on the Jesus Prayer corresponds to the Eastern Christian
ascetic tradition, following closely teachings on the Jesus Prayer in
the Pbilokalia (1782) and complementary presentations by Saints
Ignatius Brianchaninov (1807-1867) and Theophanes the Recluse
(1815-1894).
1

The publication o f the first edition o f Schemamonk Hilarin s book Na Gorakh

Kavkaza in 1907 was financed by Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna (Saint Elizabeth o f Russia, 1845-1918), aunt and sister-in-law o f Tsar Nicolas II. The book was
reprinted in 1910 and 1912 and reissued in Russia in 1998. The full title o f the 1907
edition is On the Mountains o f the Caucasus. Discussions between Two Hermits on the
Inner Union with the Lord o f Our Hearts by the Prayer o f Jesus Christ, or the Spiritual
Practice o f Contemporary Hermits. Composed by a H erm it o f the Mountains, Forests
and Canyons o f the Caucasus. The book has not been translated into English.

415

416

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

It is Hilarions audacious statements on the Name of God, a

secondary theme in the book, that triggered the Quarrel of the
Name. The main thesis of onomatodoxy is expressed in the phrase
the Name of God is God himsel an abrupt and provocative
formula borrowed from the popular pastor Saint John of Kronstadt
(1829-1908). Hilarin writes:
God is present in his holy Name with his whole being and
his infinite properties [...]. For every faithful servant of
Christ, loving his Master and Lord, praying fervently and
bearing his name piously and lovingly in his heart, this
Name worthy of worship and all-powerful is what he is
himself, namely the Lord Almighty, God and our very dear
Redeemer Jesus Christ, born of the Father before all ages,
consubstantial and equal to him in everything. [...] The
Lord is a spiritual being, who must be contemplated in an
immaterial fashion, and his Name as well. [...] It is impossible to separate the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ from his
holy person. [...] We can only reside in him through prayer,
by uniting our spirit and our heart to his most holy Name,
in which he himself is present.2
Hilarin developed no theological or philosophical arguments to
support his statements; rather, confirmation o f the presence o f God
in his Name is based on the experience of ascetics after long years of
practice of the Jesus Prayer.
2

Schemamonk Hilarin, N a Gorakh Kavkaza, cited in Hilarin Alfeyev, Le Mystre

sacr de Eglise. Introduction l'histoire et la problmatique des dbats athonites sur
la vnration du nom de Dieu (Fribourg, Switzerland: Academic Press, 2007), 21. Metropolitan Hilarin Alfeyev published a massive study o f the Name o f God in Saint
Petersburg in 2002. This is published in French in two volumes: Le Nom grand et glorieux, L a Vnration du Nom de Dieu et la prire de Jsus dans la tradition orthodoxe
(Paris: Cerf, 2007), a general study o f the divine Name in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and L e Mystre sacr de l glise> which deals more specifically with the Athonite
quarrel. Tom E. Dykstras unpublished Master s thesis Heresy on Mt Athos: Conflict
over the Name o f God among Russian Monks and Hierarchs, 1912-1914 (St Vladimir s Seminary, 1988), is a useful history o f the conflict. Online: <www.samizdat.com/
imiaslavtsy.html >. For an examination o f the name o f God in the context o f a philosophy o f names, see Helena Gourko, D ivine Onomatology: Nam e o f God in Imyaslavie,
Symbolism, and Deconstruction (Saarbrcken, Germany: V D M Verlag, 2009).

The Name of God Conflict in Othodox Theology

417

Initially, the book received an enthusiastic welcome in both

Russian monastic communities and among the Christian
intelligentsia, even in some ecclesiastical circles. But two years later
a controversy broke out on Mount Athos concerning Hilarions
statements on the Name of God, especially the statement the
Name of God is God himself. A negative review of Hilarin s book
by a monk of the Russian skete of Saint Elijah on Mount Athos
unleashed a storm o f indignation among the Russian monks of
Athos, who divided into two camps, the imiaslavtsy, favorable to
Hilarions teachings, and his opponents, called imiabortsy (those
who fight against the name).3 Hilarions opponents considered
his assertions idolatrous, bordering on pantheism and magic, as
they seemed to deify the syllables and letters o f the name o f God,
especially the name Jesus. They argued that the names o f God
are created realities, distinct from God, and therefore cannot be
identified with God.
In 1912 the conflict spread to Russia, with both sides publishing
articles and books in defense of their positions. Soon the supporters
of Hilarions ideas had rallied against them the Holy Synod of the
Church of Russia, the Russian government, most Russian media,
which publicized only the texts of their opponents, the Holy
Community o f Mount Athos (which governs Mount Athos), and
the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In April 1913, the Holy Synod of
the Russian Orthodox Church heard three reports on the issue,
all negative to the doctrine. Proponents of the hard line against
the imiaslavtsy, led by Archbishop Antony (Khrapovitsky) (18641936), prevailed in Russia. In May 1913, the Holy Synod sent a
pastoral letter to the imiaslavtsy, rejecting their doctrine, which it
equated with magicism, endorsing the decision of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate condemning the new doctrine as heretical and
blasphemous, and calling on the imiaslavtsy to abandon the false
3

These are the names used by the supporters o f the doctrine. Imiabortsy
(onamatomachi from the Greek) is derogatory. Archimandrite Hilarin was still alive
when the storm broke, but no one, neither the Holy Synod nor the supporters o f onomatodoxy, thought o f asking him to elaborate on his ideas and his book. He died in
1916.

418

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

wisdom and to submit themselves humbly to Mother Church.

A Synod delegation to Mount Athos, supported by Russian
soldiers and a warship, obliged monks who declared themselves for
onomatodoxy to board a steamship. The imiaslavtsy of the Saint
Panteleimon monastery refused, offering passive resistance, which
received a forceful response resulting in injuries and possibly even
deaths. Some 833 monks were deported to Russia, and subsequently
other Russian monks voluntarily left the Holy Mountain: estimates
range up to 1,500 monks in all, about half the Russian monks on
Athos at the time.4
After 1913, the quarrel of the Name was conducted entirely
in Russia. The monks expelled from Athos were distributed in
various dioceses, which extended the dissent throughout Russia.
They were persecuted by religious and civil authorities, barred
from communion and celebration of the sacraments, most were
stripped of their monastic robes and reduced to civil status. The
harsh treatment meted out to the recalcitrant monks resulted in
widespread public support, and their cause was taken up in the press
and specialized publications by a number of prominent Orthodox
intellectuals, including Nicholas Berdiaev (1874-1948), Sergius
Bulgakov (1871-1944), Vladimir Ern 1881-1915), Paul Florensky
(1882-1937), Anton Kartashev (1875-1960), Alexei Losev (18931988), and Mikhail Novesolov (1864-1938).
Faced with evident sympathy for the monks on the part of
Nicholas II and other members of the royal family, as well as the
public uproar, the Holy Synod had no choice but to backtrack: the
condemnations for heresy were abrogated, and in May 1914 the
Synod lifted the excommunication for monks who signified that
they accepted the dogmas of the Holy Church and referred the
theological issue to a future Council. Onomatodoxy was on the
agenda o f the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church that met in
1917-18, and a sub-commission of the Council, composed mostly
of persons favorable to onomatodoxy, including Sergius Bulgakov,
was appointed to deal with matter. The sub-commission conducted
4

Cf. Hilarin Alfeyev, Le Nom grand et glorieux, 293.

The Name of God Conflict in Othodox Theology

419

several meetings but did not complete its deliberations before the
Council adjourned in September 1918, never to reconvene.
Several philosophers and theologians continued to reflect
on the matter in the 1920s. An Onomatodoxy Circle held a
number of meetings in Moscow until 1925, at which time such
gatherings became too dangerous and many participants had been
arrested. Papers discussed at the meetings explored the linguistic,
philosophical, and theological aspects of onomatodoxy.
The inability of the Church Council of 1917-18 to deal with
onomatodoxy resulted in a relative freezing o f the positions of the
Church hierarchy toward the imiaslavtsy, most of whom were never
fully reintegrated into the Church. Many imiaslavtsy took refuge in
the Caucusus, where they played an important role in maintaining
the faith in certain villages and valleys. The Communists dealt
with onomatodoxy in their fashion: they deemed the doctrine
a subversive ideology and fabricated a vast clerical-monarchist
conspiracy aimed at overthrowing the Soviet government
and restoring the monarchy, in which counter-revolutionary
onomatodoxy supposedly played a lead role. Between 1929 and
1931, many imiaslavtsy were rounded up in the Caucasus, their
monasteries closed, and were deported or executed. In 1930, 148
worshipers of the Name interned at the Solovki concentration
camp on an island in the White Sea, perhaps monks deported from
Mount Athos, refused to work or even give their name; they were
shot, hands bound behind their backs to prevent them from making
the sign of the Cross.5
The Soviets also persecuted the intellectual supporters of
onomatodoxy still in Russia, including Alexei Losev and Mikhail
Novesolov, who were sentenced in September 1931 to ten years in the
camps and eight years of imprisonment respectively. Paul Florensky,
arrested first in 1928 and released after a few years in exile, was sent
to the camps in 1933, initially to the Urals then to Solovki. Losev
was released in 1933 and continued his philosophical activities for
the rest of his life, discretely concealing his religious commitment.
5

Pierre Pascal, L a Religion du people russe (Lausanne: L ge dhomme, 1973), 128.

420

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

Some of his fellows from the Moscow Circle of the early 1920s
did not fare as well: Florensky was executed on December 8, 1937,
and Novesolov sometime after January 1938.
The arrests, deportations, and executions of many of the
imiaslavtsy and their intellectual supporters in the late 1920s and
1930s effectively put an end to the quarrel of the Name in the
Soviet Union, but philosophical and theological reflection on the
issues raised during the quarrel continued in the exiled Russian
intellectual community. Serious consideration of onomatodoxy,
begun in the heat of the action in the years 1913 to 1918, reached
maturity in works o f the Moscow Circle of the early 1920s and in
writings of Russian theologians in exile, notably Sergius Bulgakov
and Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) (1896-1993).

II. Theology o f the Name

The quarrel of the Name was clearly more than a tempest in a
theological pot of tea. In addition to the tragic human consequences
in the 1910s, major theological and canonical issues were involved.
Archimandrite Hilarin, author of On the Mountains ofthe Caucasus,
and his principal defender, Hieromonk Antony Bulatovitch, were ill
equipped to deal with the profound philosophical and theological
issues at stake, as indeed were the opponents of the doctrine, who
saw the matter primarily in terms of formal academic theology and
Church authority and discipline. It was the religious philosophers
who identified the underlying issues and worked toward possible
solutions.
We shall consider the thinking of four leading intellectuals,
philosopher-theologians, who reflected in depth on the
onomatodoxy controversy: Paul Florensky, Alexei Losev, Sergius
Bulgakov, and Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov). Florensky and
Bulgakov were married priests, Losev a lay philosopher, Sophrony
a priest-monk who spent twenty years on Mount Athos. Florensky,
Losev, and Bulgakov were leading members of the Russian religious
renaissance of the early twentieth century and they were direct
participants in the debates on onomatodoxy in the 1910s. Their

The Name of God Conflict in Othodox Theology

421

mature reflections on the issue date from the 1920s. Sophrony,

although influenced by the religious philosophers, was closer to the
Orthodox ascetic-mystic tradition than the others and his thinking
on the Name of God was published in 1977, in the context of broad
reflections on Orthodox spiritual life, especially prayer.6 Sophrony
was not directly involved in the quarrel, but he heard a great deal
about it after his arrival at the Saint Panteleimon Monastery in
1925. Bulgakovs reflections on onomatodoxy were written in
1920-22, just prior to his expulsion from the Soviet Union, but
they were only published posthumously in 1953, under the title The
Philosophy o f the Name 7
We will consider theological reflections on onomatodoxy under
three major concepts or approaches: the Name as word, symbol,
image, and icon; the relevance of the distinction between divine
essence and divine energies to the theology of the Name of God;
and the Name of God in religious experience. Although there
are important differences among the thinkers in their use and
application of these approaches to onomatodoxy, we shall present
here a broad overview of their reflections.
1. The Name o f God as Word, Symbol Image, and Icon
Several religious philosophers begin their consideration of
onomatodoxy with an appeal to linguistics and semantics, the
philosophy of language. Typically, this takes the form of an
exploration of the relationship between the subject and the
predicate in the key postulate of onomatodoxy, the Name of God
is God himself. It is in the context of a philosophy of the Name that
Alexei Losev and Sergius Bulgakov elaborated their reflections on
onomatodoxy. For example, Bulgakov notes that the word God
in the formula is a predicate, not an indication of a substantial
6

See Archimandrite Sophrony, His Life Is M ine (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1977).
French version: Sa Vie est la mienne (Paris: Cerf, 1981). The original Russian text
with additional material was published in Paris in 1990 under the title O molitve [On
Prayer].
Sergius Bulgakov, Filosofiia imeni [The Philosophy o f the Name] (Paris: YMCA-Press,
1953). French translation: L a Philosophie du Verbe et du Nom (Lausanne: L ge
dhomme, 1991).

422

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

identity between the Being of God and the Name of God, but
in the sense that the Name of God enters into the domain of the
divine Being, that it is imbued with power, that it manifests what
the Constantinopolitan Fathers called divine energy.8
This is an important initial qualification, but a more fruitful
approach focuses on the Name as symbol. A symbol is more than
just a conventional sign (like a s t o p sign); it signifies or points
to another reality which it invokes by means of a physical medium.
The function of a symbol is thus to unite the perceiver of the symbol
with that which is symbolized. Paul Florensky sees the symbol as the
union of two beings, two strata, one inferior, the other superior,
a union in which the inferior encloses the superior within itself,
allows itself to be penetrated by it, to become imbued with it.9Thus
the Name of God in some fashion, but not in an absolute sense,
encloses God within itself; it is penetrated and imbued by God.
Alexei Losev advances a philosophy which he called absolute
symbolism, situated between absolute apophatism (God is
absolutely unknowable and does not reveal himself) and religious
rationalism (God reveals himself entirely, thus evacuating the
divine Mystery). The names of God are symbolic, revealing the
infinite essence of God ... living symbols of God who manifests
himself, or in other words, God himself in his manifestations to his
creation.10 Bulgakov adds:
The sacred Name of God is a very holy verbal symbol. It is
precisely from this idea of symbol and the symbolic nature
of speech that we can seize the significance of the Name of
God and the fact of the real presence of divine power in it.11

For Bulgakov it is not humans who name God, but rather God names
himself in human language; like Florensky, Bulgakov considers that
the Name of God is the product of divinehuman synergy.
8
9
10
11

Sergius Bulgakov, L a Philosophie du Verbe et du Nom , 206.

Paul Florensky, The Name o f God (July 1921), cited by Hilarin Alfeyev, LeM ystre sacr de l Eglise, 316.
Cited by Hilarin Alfeyev, Le Mystre sacr de l Eglise, 324, 328.
Sergius Bulgakov, La Philosophie du Verbe et du Nom, 186.

The Name of God Conflict in Othodox Theology

423

The contention is thus that the Name of God is a symbol pointing

to God himself and uniting the believer with God. The syllables and
sounds of the Name are only the external envelope of the symbol,
which is contained in the sense or referent of the syllables and sounds,
not in syllables and sounds themselves. That which a symbol invokes
is somehow present in the symbol itself: hence God is mysteriously
present in his Name, without being identified with it.
Bulgakov advances two other patristic notions to elucidate the
nature of the Name of God, the image of God in humanity, and the
icon. He attaches considerable importance to the human facility to
name things, a facility of divine origin (cf. Gen 1:19-20):
This onomato-poetic facility ... represents an aspect of the
divine image in humanity, which it possesses by essence. We
can thus understand why humans have and create names,
why they give a name to each and every thing and why
they have names themselves. ... Name in general (and the
ability to name) reaches an ontological level inaccessible to
the critique of psychology: image of God in humanity, a
component of its nature.12
Bulgakov develops extensively the idea that the Name of God is a
verbal icon: The Name of God conceals itself at the same time that
it reveals itself in speech, in our human parlance, in sound, which
becomes a kind of icon of the Name, fearsome, incomprehensible
and transcendental, of the T of God.13 The icon is developed
Name and just as there are many icons depicting Christ, there are
many names of God, each of which represents the seal of the Name
of God in speech. Similar to icons, the names o f God are the result
of divine-human synergy: As in an icon, divine power and human
speech join [in the names of God] without division and without
confusion. Humans speak and name, but that which is named is
given, is revealed.14 For Bulgakov, the Name of God is superior to
the icon because, as in the eucharist, the Name is transformed, the
12
13
14

Sergius Bulgakov, L a Philosophie du Verbe et du Nom, 196.

Sergius Bulgakov, La Philosophie du Verbe et du N om , 184.
Sergius Bulgakov, La Philosophie du Verbe et du N om , 179.

424

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

natural is absorbed by the divine, whereas the icon remains external

to the divine nature.
Archimandrite Sophrony picks up the idea that the revealed
Names of God have a special quality: We know that not only
the Name Jesus but also all the other Names revealed to us are
ontologically linked with God. And we know this by experience
in the Church.15 Like Bulgakov, Sophrony points out that the
sacraments, and in fact all Christian worship, are carried out by the
invocation of the divine Names, above all that of the Holy Trinity.
He also affirms the existence of the name Jesus prior to creation,
contrary to the imiabortsy, who claim that it is a human creation:
The Name Jesus was given by revelation from on high.
It originates in the divine and eternal sphere and is in no
way the product of human intelligence, even though it is
expressed by a created word.16
The concept of symbol or icon applied to the Name of God is
certainly helpful, a starting-point in a doctrine of the Name of
God. But nonetheless it is limited, in that to consider a symbol
itself divine is to run the risk of slipping into idolatry. A further
refinement is necessary to eliminate this possibility. Thus the idea
of symbol easily spills over into the distinction between the divine
essence and the divine energies, to which all the religious thinkers
on onomatodoxy appeal.
2. The Name o f God as Divine Energy
The religious philosophers were quick to realize that the distinction
between the divine essence and the divine energies is the crucial
theological key to understanding onomatodoxy. Although this
distinction is found in the Cappadocian fathers in the fourth
century, it was only fully developed by Saint Gregory Palamas in
the fourteenth century, during the quarrel over hesychasm. The
Palamite theology of the divine energies was enshrined in decisions
of councils of the Church of Constantinople between 1341
and 1351, but in subsequent centuries it was quietly forgotten
15
16

Archimandrite Sophrony, Sa Vie est la mienne, 133.

Archimandrite Sophrony, Sa Vie est la mienne, 137.

The Name of God Conflict in Othodox Theology

425

in Russian and Greek academic theology, which fell under the

influence of Western scholasticism. The doctrine of the divine
energies, together with its concomitant doctrines, apophatism
and divinization (theosis), was only revived in Orthodox theology
beginning in the 1920s. The essence-energies distinction did not
feature as basic theological elements of the imiabortsy, trained in
the formal theology of the Russian academies.
The doctrine of the divine energies states that the divine essence,
Godinhimself, is unknowable to any creature, whereas God
makes himself known in creation by his divine energies, which are
inseparable from the divine essence yet distinct from it. Humans
know and experience God through his energies. The unknowability
of the divine essence is the foundation of apophatic theology, while
the experience of the divine energies, revelation, and the Incarnation
of the Logos of God are the basis not only of positive theology, but
of all experience o f God. There is a crucial corollary: divine energies
are not created, they are God himself, 4operation, self-disclosure,
self-revelation of the Divinity, in Florenskys words.17 Energies are
indeed God, but God is more than his energies.
It is in this context that supporters of onomatodoxy asserted
that the Name of God is a divine energy. Florensky, for example,
considers that the Name o f God functions as a symbol and becomes
the locus of a synergetic encounter between God and humans, the
co-penetration of two energies, divine and human. He writes:
The Name of God is God, but God is not name. Gods
essence is superior to his energy, even though this energy
expresses the essence of the Name of God ... The Name
of God appears as a reality disclosing and manifesting the
divine being. The Name of God is therefore superior to
itself, it is divine and is thus God himself. ... Just as God
is knowable, God is not limited by the knowledge that
humans have of him, God is not name and his nature is not
the nature of name.18
17
18

Cited by Hilarin Alfeyev, L e Mystre sacr de l Eglise, 316.

Cited by Hilarin Alfeyev, Le Mystre sacr de lglise, 3 1 7 -1 9 .

426

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

Losevs absolute symbolism has characteristics typical of the

essence-energies distinction, which encompass the experience and
doctrine of noetic light of the Eastern mystics, and the Jesus Prayer,
a prime locus of divine-human encounter. Building on a formula
first put forward by Florensky, Losev advances these propositions:
The Name of God is divine energy, inseparable from the
very essence of God and is therefore God himself. However,
God is other than his energies and his Name. God is neither
his Name, nor name in general.19
The notion that the divine energies are at once distinct from the
divine essence yet inseparable from it is critical to understanding
the application of the doctrine to onomatodoxy. Losev mentions
several characteristic divine energies and elaborates:
The Light of God is inseparable from the divine essence, the
Power of God is inseparable from the divine essence, the
Perfection of God is inseparable from the divine essence,
[hence] the energy of the divine essence is inseparable from
God himself and is God himself; the Name of God is inseparabie from the divine essence and is therefore God himself.20
The use of the Palamite essence-energy distinction with respect
to the Name of God raises a subtle point: Is the Name of God a
divine energy as such or a manifestation o f divine energy, which
remains transcendent to the Name ? While some of our authors do
not make this distinction, others merge the two notions or alternate
between them. Bulgakov writes:
The actions of God in the world and notably in humans
reveal themselves as divine names (as shown by the wisdom
of the Aeropagite [Pseudo-Dionysius]); these are manifestations of his energy ... [The] attribution of names is a
manifestation of the energy of God and a human response.
However, this manifestation is distinct from the energy while
being at the same time inseparable from it. Distinct because
it actualizes itself in humans and by human means; insepa19
20

Cited by Hilarin Alfeyev, Le Mystre sacr de l glise, 325.

Cited by Hilarin Alfeyev, Le Mystre sacr de l Eglise, 327.

The Name of God Conflict in Othodox Theology

427

rabie because, in keeping with the general nature of speech,

a divine energy speaks of its own in humans, reveals itself by
a word, and this, as a Name of God, is like its incarnation.21
Archimandrite Sophrony also appeals to the essence-energy
distinction as the key to understanding the significance of the Name
of God, especially the Name Jesus:
As a vehicle of meaning and knowledge, as an energy of
God in his relation with the world and as his proper Name,
the Name Jesus is ontologically linked with him ... For us
it is a bridge which unites us to him; it is channel by which
we receive divine strength. Coming from the Holy God, it
is holy and sanctifies us when we invoke i t ... God is present
in this Name as in a receptacle, as in a precious vase filled
with perfume. Through it, the Transcendental becomes
perceptibly immanent. As divine energy, it proceeds from
the divine Essence and is itself divine.22
3. The Name o f God as Religious Experience
Like Archimandrite Hilarin, Archimandrite Sophrony writes of
prayer, the Jesus Prayer in particular, and the Name of God from the
perspective of a long monastic life devoted to prayer. Sophrony begins
his consideration of the Jesus Prayer by citingJesuswords, Until now
you have asked nothing in my Name ... Most assuredly, I say to you,
whatever you ask the Father in my Name he will give you (Jn 15:24,
23).23 Sophronys main interest, like that of Hilarin six decades
earlier, is to give a teaching on the Jesus Prayer, not specifically to
expound a theology of the Name of God. Sophrony s approach to the
Jesus Prayer is certainly conditioned by the theology of the Name of
God. His sympathies are clearly with onomatodoxy, and he presents a
theology of the Name very much in keeping with that of the religious
philosophers. Sophrony was familiar with Bulgakov s Philosophy of the
Name and, although he does not name Bulgakov, he draws on several
themes and ideas from Bulgakov that contribute to his approach to
21
22
23

Sergius Bulgakov, L a Philosophie du Verbe et du N om , 173.

Archimandrite Sophrony, Sa Vie est la mienne, 132-33.
Archimandrite Sophrony, Sa Vie est la mienne, 120.

428

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

the Name of God, particularly the Name Jesus, in the context of the
spiritual experience of practitioners of the Jesus Prayer.
The religious experience o f onomatodoxy arises from the
invocation of the name of Jesus, which occupies a unique place
among the names of God. Bulgakov in particular examines the
name Jesus, which, just as the name Jehovah-Yahve was revealed to
Moses (Ex 3:14), is a name revealed to the Virgin Mary (Lk 2:31).
But there is a radical difference between the two names, a difference
which forms the basis of the invocation of the name of Jesus:
If, in the Old Testament, the Name of God is terrifying and
mysterious, that of Jesus is very sweet, while still full of
power: by it we communicate with the love of God, we taste
the grace of the divine Name ... For the Jew of old, the Name
of God was like the summit of Sinai, surrounded by dark
clouds and lightning, which only Moses approached; any
invocation of the Name, other than in the formal rite fixed by
the Law, was in error and sinful. The Name of Jesus is given
at all times and at every hour (concluding prayer of canonical Hours). We must be very conscious of this difference, this
opposition, between the Name of the transcendent Divinity,
distant and terrifying ... and the Name of Jesus, of which
every human heart is the temple, of which every member of
the faithful is the priest.24
The Name Jesus is a divine-human Name, not the external
envelope o f the Name, which can also be a simple human name,
but only when it refers to Jesus the incarnate Logos. Just as the
Logos became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn 1:14), so also the
pre-existent Name o f Jesus became incarnate in Jesus the Christ. For
Bulgakov, just as Christ is the universal human being, so also the
Name Jesus is the universal Name, the Name of all names.25
One of the crucial questions which arose in the onomatodoxy
quarrel touched on the nature of prayer and more particularly on
the efficacy of the invocation of the Name of God, especially the
name Jesus, the heart of the Jesus Prayer. The imiabortsy argued that
24
25

Sergius Bulgakov, L a Philosophie du Verbe et du N om , 2 0 0-20 1 .

Sergius Bulgakov, La Philosophie du Verbe et du N om , 197-98.

The Name of God Conflict in Othodox Theology

429

the efficacy of the invocation was contingent on the state of the

person invoking the Name, on the fervor or personal disposition
of the person praying. Bulgakov and others are strongly critical of
this psychologism or subjectivism as applied to prayer, arguing
that God is present in his Name independently of the psychological
or subjective dispositions of the person praying. The supporters of
onomatodoxy apply an objective realism to the invocation of the
Name of God and draw a parallel with the invocation of the Name
of God in sacraments, especially the eucharist:
Just as the Holy Eucharistic Species are invariably Body
and Blood of Christ, be this for salvation for some or for
judgement and condemnation [...] for others, so the Name
of God is a divine energy, regardless of our attitude, pious
or sacrilegious.26
The issue penetrates to the very nature of prayer, the central act of
all religion:
Prayer becomes prayer to God, it acquires its objective value
as the union of the human being with God precisely because
of the presence of God in prayer, due to the indwelling,
simultaneously transcendental and immanent, of the Name
of God. This is the ontological foundation, the substance, the
virtue, the significance of prayer ... All prayer is miracle, if
we mean a rupture into the immanent and a piercing of the
transcendental. This miracle is the Name of God, which is
the Divinity.27
Hence liturgy is characterized by ontological objectivity; it is not
dependent on the disposition of the spirit of the celebrants, but
is accomplished in the Name of God, Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, not as a metaphor, as the imiabortsy think, but as a mystical
reality.28More specifically, the formula of John of Kronstadt picked
up by Archimandrite Hilarin

26
27
28

Sergius Bulgakov, La Philosophie du Verbe et du Nom, 202.

Sergius Bulgakov, La Philosophie du Verbe et du Nom, 202.
Sergius Bulgakov, La Philosophie du Verbe et du N om , 203.

430

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

simply signifies that the Name is divine, that it participates

in the domain of the energies of God.. .The Lord is present
by his energy, by his simplicity, by the indivisibility of his
natures...The presence of [the Divinity One]...manifests
the eternal and inaccessible mystery of the divine Incarnation and condescendence, the mystery of the presence of
God in his Name, confirmed by the sacrament of prayer.29
Archimandrite Sophrony is more cautious about dismissing
entirely the psychological or personal aspect of prayer. A starets
(spiritual father) himself, Sophrony, like his religious philosophy
predecessors, distances himself from any hint of attributing magical
power to the words themselves of prayer, including the Jesus Prayer,
but he nonetheless stresses the importance of the attitude of the
devotee in prayer:
When we are conscious of what we have said in prayer, our
prayer becomes a formidable act, even a triumphant one.
... We do not attribute magical power to the words [of the
divine Names] as such, as audible phenomena, but when
they are pronounced as a true confession of faith and in a
state of fear of God, reverence and love, then in truth we
have God together with his Names.30
Sophrony speaks o f the power of the Name from personal experience
that can only be termed mystical; at times he is circumspect, at times
more direct:
Now that the most profound sense of all divine Names has
been unveiled by Christs coming, we also should tremble
as this happens to numerous ascetes among whom I had the
possibility of livingwhen we pronounce the holy Name
of Jesus. An invocation of the divine Name fills our entire
being with the presence of God, transports our intellect to
other spheres, communicates a special energy and a new life
to us. A divine light, of which it is not easy to speak, accompanies this Name.31
29 Sergius Bulgakov, L a Philosophie du Verbe et du N om , 206.
30 Archimandrite Sophrony, Sa Vie est la mienne, 133.
31 Archimandrite Sophrony, Sa Vie est la mienne, 133.

The Name of God Conflict in Othodox Theology

431

I remember starting the Lords prayer, Our Father and

my soul swooned in blissful awe. I could not continue. My
mind stopped, everything in me fell silent. ... Only once did
it happen to me with such force. ... Some time afterwards,
something similar happened to me when I was invoking the
Name of Jesus Christ. I was obliged to stop pronouncing his
Name: the effect was too much for me: my soul, without
word, without thought, trembled at the nearness of God. ...
The following day I celebrated the Liturgy and Christ-God
was in me and with me and outside of me and in the holy
sacraments of his Body and Blood. And the divine Name
and the words of the liturgical texts issued from my mouth
like a flame. I continued in this state for three days.32
As a general remark it should be stressed that onomatodoxy
is not a doctrinal pronouncement and should not be examined
under a theological microscope as dogma or heresy. Rather, it is an
attempt, no doubt feeble and inadequate, as is any endeavour to put
words on ineffable mystical experience, to express the experience of
invocation of the Name of God and more particularly the Name
Jesus in the life of prayer. As pre-revolutionary theologian Eugene
Troubetskoy ( 1863-1920) wrote in 1913 while reading Bulatovich s
Apology:
I read Bulatovichs book and am increasingly persuaded that
the key to the problem lies not in this weak and clumsy
theology, but in life, which is profound and elevated and
does not reduce itself to this theology. One has only to draw
near to feel the warmth and joy that radiates from it.33

III. Theologies in Conflict

The quarrel of the Name was a tragic confrontation between
two visions of the Christian life, two modes of spirituality, two
theologies, two traditions in the Russian Orthodox Church: the
academic-moral tradition, to which belonged most of the Church
hierarchy, characterized by a rational approach to theology inherited
32
33

Archimandrite Sophrony, On Prayer (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1998), 47.

Cited by Hilarin Alfeyev, Le Mystre sacr de l'Eglise, 382.

432

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

from Western scholasticism, and the ascetic-mystical tradition,

which traces its pedigree back to the Desert Fathers, through the long
history of Orthodox spirituality and monasticism, to the Philokalic
revival in Orthodox spirituality, stimulated by the publication of the
Philokalia in 1782, which reached deep into the Russian soul in the
nineteenth century. Throughout most of the nineteenth century these
two groups maintained a state of peaceful coexistence, but Hilarin s
book struck a sensitive chord and ultimately represented a challenge
that some hierarchs could not ignore, both for personal reasons and
for the prestige and authority of the Church.
The conflict between the two groups brought to light another
fundamental split that developed in the second half of the nineteenth
century, between the Church hierarchy and the intelligentsia.
Large segments of the Russian nobility, the upper classes, and the
intelligentsia had deserted the Church by the end of the nineteenth
century. The basic program of the intelligentsia, the overthrow of the
imperial regime, put it at odds with the Church, closely identified
with the detested monarchy. The late nineteenth century nonetheless
saw the flowering of a remarkable religious renaissance among leading
members o f the intelligentsia, but the Church was even unable to see
eye to eye with this true Christian intelligentsia. It was members of
this group, the Florenskys and the Bulgakovs, who flew to the rescue
of the beleaguered imiaslavtsy, who were unable to express adequately
the theological sense of their spiritual experience.
The conflict over the Name of God recalls the great fourteenthcentury quarrel over hesychasm, in which Mount Athos was also
the center of the storm. The issue then was not dissimilar to that
of the early twentieth century: the claim of the hesychasts who
asserted that they had a real experience of God in their prayer
life, experience sealed by visions of Divine Light, was confronted
by a rationalistic theology inspired by the humanism of the early
Renaissance, which denied that it was possible for humans to have
a real experience of God, who is unknowable. In the fourteenth
century, Saint Gregory Palamas, himself an Athonite, became the
articulate spokesman o f the hesychasts, especially by developing the

The Name of God Conflict in Othodox Theology

433

idea latent in Eastern Christian theology since the Cappadocian

Fathers, the distinction between the divine essence and the divine
energies. But the twentieth-century hesychasts had no Gregory
Palamas in their midst, and it was their supporters among the
Christian intelligentsia who took up the challenge of confronting
the profound philosophical and theological issues underlying
onomatodoxy.
The imiahortsy had an erroneous point of departure for their
critique of onomatodoxy: an attempt to assess religious experience,
the life of prayer, both liturgical and personal, in terms o f a rational,
scholastically-inspired dogmatic theology, which evacuates the
mystical and transcendental nature of true prayer. The real tragedy
occurred when ambitious hierarchs, nourished on a formalistic
approach to religion and religious experience, seized on the Athonite
critique of Archimandrite Hilarions book and cast the issue as
doctrinal, conflicting with the rather superficial accepted wisdom
of the official Church, and seemingly threatening its authority. Even
faced with the origin of the formula the Name of God is God in
John of Kronstadt, an eminent and beloved pastor, they were unable
to approach onomatodoxy in the context of prayer and liturgy.
Although the defenders of onomatodoxy among the Christian
intelligentsia were pre-eminent thinkers, philosophers, and
theologians, true intellectuals, ironically they were far more attuned to
the experiential, mystical dimension o f the faith and the Church than
the hierarchs who made up the chief opposition to onomatodoxy
and who must be held responsible for the tragic dnouement of the
Athonite affair. It was this handful of intellectuals who stood up
to be counted, both in heat of the action and afterwards, even at the
risk of their lives.
Archimandrite Sophrony places the doctrine of the Name of
God squarely in the ascetical-mystical tradition of the Orthodox
Church, as did the author of On the Mountains of the Caucasus.
Onomatodoxy is considered in the light of the life of prayer, in the
context of our spiritual growth,34 rather than from the perspective
34

Archimandrite Sophrony, Sa Vie est la mienne, 136.

434

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

o f academic theology remote frompraxis. Sophrony and the religious

philosophers were intellectuals with a keen sense of the continuity
between the spiritual life, and ultimately mystical experience, and
Orthodox theology, what Vladimir Lossky characterized as the
Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.35 Sophrony was more
theologically inclined than his monastic predecessor of the early
twentieth century, and he had the benefit of the mature reflections
of Bulgakov and others on the subject.
It is in this light that we should see Hilarin Alfeyev s positive
contemporary assessments o f the contributions o f Bulgakov and
Sophrony to the evolution of Orthodox reflection on the theology
of the Name. Alfeyev considers that the doctrine of Sergius
Bulgakov on the Name of God, contained in The Philosophy of
the Name, is the most complete and the most relevant expression
of the onomatodoxy doctrine of the Name of God, while that of
Archimandrite Sophrony appears the most accurate, the most
concise, at the same time the most sound theologically, and that it
completes the process o f maturation of the doctrine of the Name
of God in Russian theology.36
Bulgakov s consideration ofonomatodoxy is more philosophically
based and more robust and exhaustive theologically, while that of
Sophrony is more biblically and liturgically based, and it integrates
more thoroughly spiritual and existential aspects of the Name of God
in prayer with theological considerations. This is more a matter of
personal disposition and emphasis than a reflection of fundamental
differences. Sophrony is perhaps more cautious than Bulgakov in
his theological reflections and languagefor example he does not
use the contested onomatodoxy formula, nor does he consider the
Name of God to be superior to the icon, as does Bulgakov.
In turn, Hilarin Alfeyev is more cautious still than the
principal supporters of onomatodoxy. For example, he rejects the
onomatodoxy formula on the grounds that we cannot affirm the
35
36

Vladimir Lossky s classic The Mystical Theology o f the Eastern Church was originally
published in French in 1944. In English: Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1976.
Hilarin Alfeyev, Le Mystre sacr de l Eglise, 385

The Name of God Conflict in Othodox Theology

435

identity of God with his Name (assuming that the verb to be in

the formula is understood in the sense of identification), that we
believe that God can be named and that the Names of God can
adequately express the divine essence. The formula is nonetheless
useful, he finds, if it is understood along the lines that God is
present in his Name or that God resides in his Name. Similarly,
he rejects the straightforward contention that the Name o f God is
a divine energy, if the term energy is used in a Palamite sense and
thus designates an energy co-eternal with God, inseparable from his
nature, independently of the existence of the created world.37
In his caution, Alfeyev cites approvingly the only text that we
have from Vladimir Lossky on onomatodoxy, remarks contained
in a letter written in 1938. For Lossky, the dogmatic question of
the Name of God is as important as that of icons and just as the
dogmatic expression concerning icons resulted in the triumph
of Orthodoxy in the ninth century, so the Orthodox doctrine
of the Names should provoke a new triumph of Orthodoxy, the
manifestation of new beatifying and sanctifying forces. Lossky
rejects both the rationalist modern-day iconoclasts of the Name,
typified by Antony Khrapovitsky, and the radical worshippers of
the Name, who divinize the sounds of the divine Name, pointing
instead to the theology of Gregory Palamas and to spirituality as the
basis of a solution. He cites a formula of Archbishop Theophanes of
Poltava, The Divinity resides in the Name of God, and comments:
When this formula will be clear, filled with spiritual experience
and spiritually obvious, many questions will automatically fall by
the wayside and many difficulties will then appear childish.38
Writing in the 1930s, Georges Florovsky, in his monumental
Ways o f Russian Theology, made only a few general remarks on
onomatodoxy. But in these few remarks he puts his finger on the heart
of both the historical and the theological aspects of the controversy:
In the history of Russian theology one detects a creative
confusion. Most harmful has proven the gulf separating
37
38

See Hilarin Alfeyev s theological conclusions in Le Mystre sacr de l glise, 381 -8 8 .

Cited by Hilarin Alfeyev in Le Mystre sacr de l glise, 387 -8 8 .

436

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

theology and piety, theological learning and devotional

prayer, the theology of the schools and the life of the
Church. A split or schism between the intelligentsia and
the people occurred within the Church itself ...This is so
characteristically expressed in the 191213 Athos controversy concerning the names of God and the Jesus Prayer.39
In a footnote he says about the onomatodoxy formula:
It would seem that this was not so much a theological assertion as much as it was simply a description of the reality of
the prayer. But even this reality seemed too daring. Psychologism in the explanation of prayer appeared to many safer,
more humble and more pious.40
It seems that neither Lossky nor Florovsky was familiar with the
thinking of the religious philosophers on onomatodoxy. Although
both lived in Paris in the 1930s, they were on opposite sides of
the theological fence from Sergius Bulgakov, yet quite possibly
both would have found Bulgakov s theology of the Name quite
satisfactory as an Orthodox approach to the issue.
The failure of the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of
1917-18 to deal with onomatodoxy means that it is still an open
question. Should the issue resurface in an ecclesiastical context, at a
centurys interval from the tragic events of the 1910s, there is now
a solid philosophical and theological base to work toward more
considered doctrinal and canonical conclusions than was the case
then. Any consideration of the issue has to be based on a holistic
vision: theology, spirituality, and liturgy cannot be separated. The
expression the Name of the Lord occurs frequently in Orthodox
liturgy, almost invariably referring to or invoking the Name of God as
identical to referring to or invoking God. At the end of the Liturgy of
Saint John Chrysostom, the choir and the people sing: Blessed be the
Name of the Lord both now and forever.
39

40

Georges Florovsky, Puti russkogo bogosloviya [The Ways o f Russian Theology] (Belgrade, 1937); English version in The Collected Works o f Georges Florovsky, Vol. VI
(Vaduz: Bcher Vertriebsanstalt, 1972), 290.
Georges Florovsky, The Ways o f Russian Theology, 376.

Copyright and Use:

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

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