G E N E R A L A RT IC L E S F R OM A N Z AT S C O N F E R E N C E

A F O R G O T T E N M E T HO D O F T H E O L O G Y: I N SIG H T S
F R OM A N E A ST E R N O RT HO D OX P E R SP E C T I V E 1

Philip Kariatlis
Saint Andrews Greek Orthodox Theological College, Sydney College of
Divinity, New South Wales

It is one thing to speak of God; it is quite another thing to know God.

Staretz Silouan

The word theologyas it is used today, is a very broad term,

more often than not understood simply as an intellectual inquiry and study
about God, rationally conditioned as are all academic disciplines in general.
Such an understanding can easily be drawn from the etymology of the word:
derived from two Greek words [God] and [word], theology
is accordingly interpreted to signify God-talkdiscourse or doctrine of
Godand, as such, would want to aim at leading the one inquiring into
some understanding of the identity and nature of the Godhead. Further-
more, it is argued that, in the same way that all academic disciplines in gen-
eral are marked by an attitude of inquiry, research and analysis, coupled
with an appeal predominantly to reason and argument, so too, it would be
suggested, is theology to be approached in a similar, if not identical, man-
ner. Indeed, wanting to fit within a scientific epistemological framework,
theology has fought hardsometimes to no availto be afforded its right-
ful place within the university sector, expending much ink to demonstrate
the extent to which its theological method corresponds closely to those of
the sciences in general.
It is the contention of this paper that todays prevailing theological
method, with its use of deductive reasoning and philosophical catego-
ries to such an extent that has left little, if any, room for experience and
initiation into the ineffable mystery of God may be one of the
1 This article is dedicated to the Revd Dr John Chryssavgis, my former lecturer in Patristics
at St Andrews Greek Orthodox Theological College, Sydney (now advisor to the
Ecumenical Patriarch on environmental issues), who first exposed me to the wonderful
world of St Gregory the Theologian and his understanding of method in theology.

26 Colloquium 47/1 2015

contributing factors that has led to an eclipse of God and to theologys
increasing irrelevance within society. In an article aimed at presenting a
definition of theology in terms of divine gift and fellowship with God, Patri-
arch Bartholomew I noted that it was not so much the purported secularism
and other external factors which led to the eclipse of God in the twentieth
century but rather theologys predominantly rationalist approach together
with its disconnection from lifes challenges. He went so far as to point out:
we may perhaps discern the reason why, although intellectual growth
has abounded even in the field of theology, nevertheless the influence
of theology provides little if any challenge or even direction in the
contemporary world. It remains a lifeless and spineless human crea-
tion. If theology fails to recover its connection to vigilance and prayer
then it will have no reason to continue in the future history of
humanity as a dry and rationalist exercise alongside the many other
theoretical sciences. It will simply fill up our libraries with intellec-
tual dissertations, which may be excellently argued but hardly able to
inspire the human soul towards life-giving and life-saving love
of God.2
Right from the outset, it must be noted that it is not the systematization of
thinkingnamely the synthetic arrangement of thoughtor the employ-
ment of discursive reasoning as such, nor still the precision with which doc-
trines need to be argued and presented that is of concern, but rather a failure
to recognize the limitations of this method when it comes to the unique
discipline of theology. Far from coherency and lucidity being extraneous
to methodological considerations in theological discourse, it is rather their
unqualified implementation, resulting in an underestimationif not out-
right rejectionof the mystical or theophanic aspects of theology, that
I am addressing.
Often misunderstood today as being philosophically deficientnot to
say irrational3the characteristic existential method, highly regarded in
the Eastern Orthodox tradition, is offered as a way of giving expression
to a real knowledge of Gods self-revelation which transcends at the same
time human rational categories of thought. Without disparaging reason,
methodological considerations in Eastern Orthodox thought would want to

2 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, Orthodox Theology: Divine Charisma and

Personal Experience, Theology Today 61(2004): 1213.
3 See, for example, Illtyd Trethowan, Irrationality in Theology and the Palamite
Distinction, Eastern Churches Review 9 (1977): 286300.

Philip Kariatlis, A Forgotten Method of Theology: 27

Insights from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective
include the entire consciousness of the person,4 and not just the
discursive rational aspect. In presenting this understanding of theologi-
cal method, this article will explore some of its most prominent aspects
in the early Patristic traditiona treasure seen to be in continuity with
the New Testament witness of God, belonging to a period of the first
common undivided Christian millennium5 and therefore the right-
ful inheritance of all Christian churches today. Furthermore, in outlin-
ing the significantyet often forgottenPatristic existential vision, I
hope in this article to make a contribution to modern understandings
of method in systematic theology which might once again see the
complementarity in the two approaches as opposed to their alleged ir-
reconcilability, as has often been argued in the past.6 Indeed, in pre-
senting such insights, it is hoped that these will provide a helpful way
forward for theology to regain it rightful place in society today since it will
once again be seen as responding to the existential concerns of humanity.
Characteristic of the Eastern Orthodox approach to methodologi-
cal considerations in theology is its insistence that knowledge of God is
inextricably linked to the person seeking such knowledge. Since theology
is fundamentally understood in existential terms, namely as a process of

4 See, for example, St Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names 7, 3 PG 3, 872A:
Hence God is known in all things and apart from all things; and God is known though
knowledge and unknowing; and on the one hand He is reached by intuition [],
reason [], encounter [], understanding [], perception [],
conjecture [], appearance [], name [].
5 Notwithstanding the many fractures within the Christian Church during this time,
such as the divisions caused by Arianiasm, Nestorianism and Monophysitism, Georges
Florovsky, for example, argues that, from the Orthodox point of view, it was the division
between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches that broke the unity of the one
Church within the consciousness of Christians. On this, he wrote: The division of the
Churches begins precisely with the break between Byzantium and Rome. The unity
of the Christian world was shattered at that very point. Georges Florovsky, A Sign of
Contradiction: A Reflection on the Meeting of the Pope and the Patriarch, in Dialogue
of Love: Breaking the Silence of Centuries, ed. John Chryssavgis (New York: Fordham
University Press, 2014), 62.
6 An insightful article giving a historical trajectory of the debate over method in the East
and West is A. N. Williams, The Logic of Genre: Theological Method in East and West,
Theological Studies 60 (1999): 679707. An Eastern Orthodox perspective is provided by
Kallistos Ware, Scholasticism and Orthodoxy: Theological Method as a Factor in the
Schism, Eastern Orthodox Theological Review 5 (1973): 1627.

28 Colloquium 47/1 2015

initiation into the divine mysteries of God,7 certain moral and spiritual
conditions for such knowledge are presupposed. Unlike contemporary
methods of learning which assume that knowledge can only be reliable
to the extent that it has been impartially observed, studied in a detached
manner, logically analysed and deduced irrespective of the person
undertaking the research, Orthodox theology is seen essentially as an
encounter8 between God and the the student of theology, thus
presupposing a formativeand ultimately transformativeaspect.
For this reason, as will be shown, terms such as prayer [],
purification [], ascesis [] and experience []
to name a fewtypically carry significant weight in discussions on
theological method.
It needs to be noted that in placing emphasis on the personal
commitment within its methodological framework, Eastern Orthodox
theology in no way believes that such knowledge is contingent upon

7 See, St Dionysius the Areopagite who highlighted the communal approach to theology
when he wrote that truth is that everything divine and everything revealed to us is
known only by way of whatever participation is granted. On the Divine Names 2, 7 (PG
3, 645A). Patriarch Bartholomew, Orthodox Theology, offers a number of Patristic
references which highlight theologys existential character. This understanding of
theology is widespread in Eastern Orthodox theology. Several examples include: Andrew
Louth, Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic,
2013); Andrew Louth, What is Theology? What is Orthodox Theology?, St Vladimirs
Theological Quarterely 51, no. 4 (2007): 43544; Constantine Scouteris, Doxology,
the Language of Orthodoxy, The Greek Orthodox Theology Review 38 (1993): 15362;
Alkiviades Calivas, Orthodox Theology and Theologians: Reflections on the Nature,
Task, and Mission of the Theological Enterprise, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 37
(1992): 275307; and Boris Bobrinskoy, Theology and Spirituality, in The Compassion of
the Father (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2003), 12132.
8 , the Greek word for encounter etymologically made up of the pronoun
meaning together with and the noun meaning opposite, signifies a coming
together of two parties which are entirely different or opposite to one another (not necessarily
against each other as the English etymology of encounter might suggestcoming from
the Old French noun lencontre meaning adversary or confrontation. Approached from
the perspective of an encounter, theology is essentially understood in terms of an experience
or meeting of created human beingswho are perishable, circumscribable, limited, etc
with the uncreated God who is eternal, uncircumscribable and beyond any limits. The
beauty of such a depictionor even definitionfor theology is not only its broadness
including the experience of the entire created realm with God, but more importantly its
existential character highlighting that theology is ultimately a meeting in which one comes
to experience the indwelling presence of God and subsequently comes to trust and believe
in Godsomething infinitely greater than mere intellectual understanding of certain
propositional truths about God.

Philip Kariatlis, A Forgotten Method of Theology: 29

Insights from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective
human efforts. Fourth century debates in the West over the relationship
between divine and human agency, which gave rise to extensive theological
treatises in this area, did not affect the Eastern part of the Empire during
that time. For this reason, the Eastern Patristic tradition spoke equally of
theology as a gift of Gods self-revelation and the necessity of human ef-
fort in the preservation of this gift. Accordingly, together with the need
for purification there is, in the Eastern Orthodox vision, a method which
gives way to a personal experience of the gift of Gods self-revelation. In
reflecting on the methodology of the Church Fathers, John Chryssavgis
writes: the purpose of theological knowledge is to move beyond the stage
of learning as understanding () things divine, to a level of learning as
undergoing () divinity.9 Surpassing a purely rationalist approach,
theology, according to Chryssavgis demands another means aside from
philosophical discourse. In the fourth century, St Gregory the Theologian
characterised this approach to theology as one which needed to be in accord
with the apostles and not Aristotle .10 More
recently, the words of Staretz Silouan, it is one thing to speak of God; it is
quite another to know God,11 which have been chosen as the epigraph of
this article, express succinctly the disquiet of the Eastern Orthodox tradi-
tion with regards to philosophical complacency over against direct experi-
ence like that of the apostles. Consequently, far from being dismissive of the
perspicacious force of language, it is mindful of the preparation required to
receive the gift of divine knowledge.
In the fourth century, St Gregory the Theologian dedicated two of his Five
Theological Orations to the question of method, and in the Eastern Ortho-
dox tradition his understanding of theological method continues to remain
significant.12 He has long been recognized not only for his erudite teaching
on the Holy Trinity, but also for his understanding of the way such knowl-
edge of God is gained. In light of the divergent views of theological method
in his own daythat of the Neo-Arians or the Eunomians for exampleSt
Gregory cogently put forward his position which ultimately paved the way

9 John Chryssavgis, The Way of the Fathers: Exploring the Patristic Mind (Thessaloniki: The
Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1998), 100.
10 St Gregory the Theologian, Oration 23, 12. (PG 35, 1164C).
11 Cited in Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Orthodox Theology, 7.
12 In his chapter on methodology in the Fathers, Chryssavgis highlights the important
contribution of St Gregory the Theologian. John Chryssavgis, The Way of the Fathers:
Exploring the Patristic Mind (Thessalonika: Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies,
1998), 77106.

30 Colloquium 47/1 2015

for subsequent expressions in the East.13 It is for this reason that this
article will focus predominantly on St Gregorys understanding of theologi-
cal method as it exemplifies the Eastern Orthodox understanding today. In
so doing, it will highlight firstly the commitment on the part of the seeker
that is presupposed in St Gregorys writingsespecially as can be evidenced
in his first two Theological Orationstogether with the existential aspect
that constitutes the second characteristic feature of his dipartite approach.
Ultimately, his teaching on theological method stemmed from an under-
standing of theology which needed to provide a way for a personal experi-
ence of God. It was this that led him to concentrate his efforts on highlight-
ing both the moral and existential presuppositions for theologizing.

The D ynamic of P urification

The Eastern Orthodox tradition is very clear that the means by which one
is initiated into divine knowledge of Godnotwithstanding of course the
gift-aspect of theology14depends also on the state of the one seeking such

13 For example, St Gregorys understanding of theological method in terms of Moses ascent

up Mount Sinai became the primary image used by many Fathers, most notably St Gregory
of Nyssa in his treatise on The Life of Moses and St Dionysius the Areopagites Mystical
Theology. On this Christopher Beeley writes: Here Gregory dramatically portrays the
relationship between God and the theologian in a first-person narration of Moses ascent
up Mount Sinai to meet with God a motif that was to become enormously influential
in later traditions of Christian spirituality. Christopher Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus on
the Trinity and the Knowledge of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 65.
14 It lies outside the scope of this article to analyse in depth Western conversations about nature
and grace coming out of the Augustinian theological tradition. It suffices to point out that
the Eastern understanding of synergy emphasizes ascetical effort yet is most concerned
also to underscore that the source of all these is the grace of God. Accordingly, whilst
drawing attention to purification in his methodological considerations, St Gregory the
Theologian equally attributes this to the grace of God. In Oration 39, St Gregory highlights
the importance of purification but connects it with Christs visitation to the believer. He
characteristically writes: [L]et us purify ourselves and be initiated into the Word. so that
we may do as much good to ourselves as possible, forming ourselves into Gods image and
receiving the Word when he comes [ ] [italics my own]
not only receiving him, but in fact holding onto him and revealing him to others. Oration
39.10 (PG 36, 345). The same is reiterated more recently in an article on the Orthodox
understanding of methodology in theology by Athanasius Jevtic: Theology, therefore, as
the expression of our knowledge of the living, true and revealed God is intimately connected
with divine revelation. In this, the initiative certainly belongs to God, but in this event
of revelation, the free response of the human person is also included and presupposed.
Athanasius Jevtic, The Methodology of Theology [in Greek], 14 (1982): 171
[Translation my own].

Philip Kariatlis, A Forgotten Method of Theology: 31

Insights from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective
knowledge. More specifically, it speaks of the necessity for self-purification
since it sees this commensurate with knowledge of God. This injunction for
purification as a necessary basis for knowledge of God is nothing other than
the biblical call for purity: all who have this hope in him [namely to see
God as he is] purify themselves just as he is pure (1 John 3:3), and more
famously the Sermon on the Mount, blessed are the pure in heart, for they
will see God (Matt 5:8).15 St Gregory the Theologian especially exemplified
this attitude in a well-known passage from his First Theological Oration:
Discussion of theology is not for everyone, I tell you, not for
everyoneit is no such inexpensive or effortless pursuit. Nor, I
would add, is it for every occasion, or every audience; neither are
all its aspects open to inquiry. It is not for all people, 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 [
, , ].
For one who is not pure, to lay hold of pure things is not safe [
], just as it is for weak eyes to look at the suns brightness.16
The basic point of the passage is clear: the quest for knowledge of God
ought to correspond with ones purification since it was, for St Gregory,
a fundamental aspect of his theological method. Realistic about the hu-
man condition, the point is made that the minimum requirement is not
to have necessarily reached a perfected state of purification but at the
very least to have engaged in this processindeed, incessantly through-
out ones lifetime. It is for this reason that in the same oration, the
Theologian also made mention of an array of Old Testament Exodus

15 In his seminal study on St Gregory the Theologians theological vision, Beeley makes note
of the Theologians biblical understanding of purification. An excerpt from Oration 11,
cited by Beeley exemplifies this forcefully: Let us free ourselves [the NT text reads Let us
purify ourselves ()] from every defilement of body and spirit (2 Cor 7:1). Let
us wash and become clean () (Is 1:16). Let us present our very bodies and souls
as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is [our] spiritual worship and
petition (Rom 12:1). For nothing is so precious to the One who is pure ( ) than
purity and purification ( ). Oration 11, 4, cited in Beeley, Gregory
of Nazianzus, 7576.
16 St Gregory the Theologian, Theological Oration 1, 3 (PG 36.13C-D). Unless otherwise
stated, the English translation of the original text of the Five Theological Orations is that
of Frederick Williams (Oration 27) and Lionel Wickham (Orations 2831) (Crestwood,
NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2002). All Patristic citations were checked and adapted
against Patrologia Graeca.

32 Colloquium 47/1 2015

figuresAaron, Hadab, Abihuas paradigms of the way in which
approaching God corresponds to the degree of ones purification.17 Else-
where, he succinctly made the same point regarding the necessity for puri-
fication: one must first purify oneself, and then draw near to the pure [
, ].18
Accordingly, knowledge of God is only possible when the seeker
is gradually formed into Gods image, becoming, to some extent,
like God and thereby joining to that with which it has become familiar
[ ].19 Consequently, for St Gregoryas indeed for the en-
tire Eastern Orthodox Patristic traditionthe process of purification con-
stituted a necessary component in his methodological schema relating to
divine knowledge.
Purification [] essentially signifies a process towards integrity
[-]note the etymological proximity between the two concepts.
In this way, purification is understood as internal consistency or integrity of
character which, in the face of temptation, remains totally devoted to God.
Put another way, it involves a gradual transformation from brokenness to
wholeness. This is only possible when the person has reached a pure state of
heartor, more correctly according to St Gregory, is engaged in this process.20
More specifically, for St Gregory, purification involved a fundamental change
of ones former waynamely, a metanoia or repentanceresulting in noth-
ing less than a radical renewal of ones being. As a result of the fall, not only
was the original harmony between God and humanity interrupted but so was
the harmonious relationship between the soul and the body of the human
person. And whereas previously the power of the soul pervaded the flesh,
now the passions of the flesh permeated the soul resulting in a lack of congru-
ence between the two.21 In rhetorically asking, would you be a theologian?,
St Gregory responded simply, then keep the commandments [
]!22 Immediately, before this he admonished his listeners to build
up purity [ ].23 In so doing, ones life would begin to change

17 Oration 27, 2 (PG 36, 13B-C).

18 Oration 20.4 (PG 35, 1000A).
19 Oration 2, 17 (PG 35, 428).
20 See Theological Oration 1, 3 (PG 36.13CD).
21 One must not too easily conclude that that there exists here an anti-body worldview since
the writings of St Gregory make clear the inherent goodness of the body. See Beeley,
Gregory of Nazianzus, 7983.
22 Oration 20, 12 (PG 35, 44B).
23 Oration 20, 12 (PG 35, 44B).

Philip Kariatlis, A Forgotten Method of Theology: 33

Insights from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective
resulting in a graced possibility to be lifted on high24 and to know God. On
this he wrote:
Present yourself now as a new person, different in character, completely
changed. You should be in constant change improving, ever a new
creature [ , , ], repenting if
you should sin and pressing forward if your life is virtuous.25
Indeed, for St Gregory, this endless process of spiritual and moral growth
towards purification, which is graphically described in terms of smooth[ing]
the theologian in us, like a statue, into beauty [ ,
, ],26 can take place through a variety of means.
Even though the list mentioned in the First Oration is by no means exhaus-
tive, it is indicative of the general preconditions needed for knowledge of
God. Accordingly, in a rather lengthy series of rhetorical questions, the
Theologian asked:
Do we commend hospitality? Do we admire brotherly love, wifely
affection, virginity, feeding the poor, singing Psalms, night-long vigils,
penitence? Do we, through prayer, take up our abode with God?
Do we establish our mastery over the passions, mindful of our nobil-
ity of our second birth? Do we tame our unrealistic grief, our crude
pleasures, our dirty laughter, our undisciplined eyes, our greedy ears,
our immoderate talk 27
This broad understanding of purification included all aspects of life.
Indeed, his inclusive attitude is summarized in a famous statement: action
is the stepping stone to contemplation [ ].28
Not only involving a process of inner renunciation and self-mastery, puri-
fication, according to St Gregory, was also positively understood, requir-
ing nothing less than charity towards others, namely, an other-centred
mode of existence. Of interest is the reference to all night vigils which
betrays the ecclesio-liturgical matrix that framed his theological method.
His theology was one born out of an inner mystical experience realized
within these liturgical services and reading the Scriptures within the body
of Christ, the church. From all the above, it becomes clear that St Gregorys

24 Oration 39, 8 (PG 36, 344A).

25 Oration 44, 8 (PG 36, 616C 617A).
26 Oration, 27, 7 (PG 36, 20B).
27 Oration, 27, 7 (PG 36, 20B).
28 Oration 20, 12 (PG 36, 1080B).

34 Colloquium 47/1 2015

discussion on theological method, far from favouring a detached or
neutral predisposition on the part of the seeker, called for nothing less
than commitment to a dynamic, lived relationship with God requiring
action on the part of the seeker.
Coupled with purification, St Gregory highlighted the indispensability
of prayerunderstood in terms of remembrance of Godas the means par
excellence for knowing God. For St Gregory, it is only when ones whole be-
ing is engaged in a life of prayer that one receives true gnosis. It is for this
reason that the saint saw prayer as a necessary component in his under-
standing of theological method. Indeed, the importance of prayer is exem-
plified in the following statement by St Gregory: it is more important to
remember God than we should breathe [
, ].29 Eva-
grius Ponticus, a student of St Gregory also drew attention to the inextrica-
ble link between theology and prayer in writing what has become today the
most quoted statement on this: if you are a theologian you will pray truly;
if you pray truly, you are a theologian.30 Also, concerning the necessity of
prayer, Vladimir Lossky more recently writes:
God is not a scientific subject, and theology differs from philosophical
thought in radical forms; a theologian does not seek God as one re-
searches any other subject The God of theology is this you, is the
living God of the Bible, of course this is the Absolute, but a personal
Absolute, whom we call you in prayer.31
Yet, according to St Gregory, prayer is not so much defined by a multitude of
words but is most perfect when expressed in silence. Prayer, as the method
par excellence for knowing God, included a profound attentiveness in si-
lence to the presence of God reached through inner contemplation. Born
out of silence, pure prayer went beyond words because in this presence of
the divine, one discerned the inadequacy of words:
You do not know what a divine gift silence is [ ,
], not needed to speak every word, but keeping

29 Oration 27, 4 (PG 36, 16C).

30 Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 61 (PG 79, 1179).
31 Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, trans. by members of the
Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press,
1976), 200.

Philip Kariatlis, A Forgotten Method of Theology: 35

Insights from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective
 it within ourselves as masters over speech as well as silence. For by
nature every word is feeble and inadequate.32
For St Gregory, silence and contemplation was a conditio sine qua non for
divine knowledge. In this claim, he was simply basing himself on the scrip-
tural verse found in Ps 46:10, be still and know that I am God [
].33 Indeed, contemplative silence as an essential
feature for learning in general, and together with meditation and prayer, was
considered a most effective means for learning and drawing nearer to God
throughout the middle ages34perhaps, a timely reminder for the tertiary
sector today. Having outlined the need for purification and contemplation,
our attention is now turned to a second aspect in St Gregorys teaching on
theological method.
Existential D imension
The second dimension of the multi-faceted understanding of method in
theology within the Eastern Orthodox tradition has to do with its existential
approach to theology. In this understanding, precisely because the ultimate
aim of theology is seen as providing a means for the mystery of God to be
approached, beheld, lived and experienced35rather than simply objectively
understoodthere is a corresponding method to provide a means for this
to take place. In his classic study on the existential nature of theologywhat
he called mystical theologyLossky highlights that, the eastern tradi-
tion has never made a sharp distinction between mysticism and theology;
[namely], between personal experience of the divine mysteries and the dogma
affirmed by the church [] theology and mysticism support and complete

32 Oration 32, 14 (PG 36, 189BC).

33 See Oration 27, 3 (PG 36, 16A).
34 Louth beautifully describes the tertiary sector today which is seen to need to produce
even though its whole raison dtre from earlier times was precisely the opposite; the
school was understood to be that place of leisurealready an idea seen in Aristotle
where one had to cease doing work precisely in order to contemplate reality. In highlighting
the etymological proximity between the words in Greek for be still [] and
school [], Louth understands the school or in his case, the university, precisely as
the place where one has to cease active work in order to discern the ultimate reality of
life. Andrew Louth, Theology, Contemplation and the University, in Studies in Christian
Ethics (London: Continuum, 2004), 6979.
35 See for example, Vasiljevic who describes theology not only [as] a declaration of Truth
but also an invitation to a free, wholehearted, personal meeting with the Truth. Bishop
Maxim [Vasiljevic], An Existential Interpretation of Dogmatics: Theological Language
and Dogma in the Face of the Culture of Pluralism, St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly
51, no. 4 (2007): 410.

36 Colloquium 47/1 2015

each other.36 In the same vein, Nicholas Sacharov argues: the basis of the
knowledge of God is a personal and existential act of communion with the
divine reality.37 More specifically, in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the exis-
tential dimension of theology is often expressed in terms of a graced ascent
on the part of the one seeking knowledge of God where a real possibility of a
vision and encounter with God is made possible. Whereas purification consti-
tutes an ongoing presupposition in theology providing a means for wholeness
so as to receive the gift of Gods self-revelation, the existential ascetic ascent
is what makes possible this spiritual journey to encounter God. Those two
aspects of theological methodnamely, purification and experience of the di-
vine as illumination and ultimately union with Godwere brought together
very clearly in the writings of St Gregory. This, by way of example, is clearly
seen in the following:
it is necessary to be purified, before purifying others; wise before giv-
ing wisdom; light before illuminating others; to draw near to God and
in so doing to draw others near; to be sanctified before sanctifying
others [ , ,
, ,
, ].38
In this sense, theological method is marked both by a mystagogical and
theophanic dimension. By mystagogical is simply meant the ascetical venture
which is commenced to ascend Mount Sinai in order to enter, like Moses,
the cloud of divine presence. This initiation into the divine mysteries is there-
fore at the same time a theophany and illumination of God. It is this latter
aspect of the vision of God that we have called the theophanic dimension
of theological method. In such an understanding, the method for theological
knowledge, as already seen, is one marked by a communal or participatory
dimension rather than a purely philosophico-epistemological one.
The ascensional dimension of theological method, often explained, as
stated above, using the paradigmatic Old Testament encounter between

36 Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 8. Also see Andrew Louth, The
Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition: From Plato to Denys (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1989), xi: mystical theology provides the context for direct apprehensions of the God
who has revealed himself in Christ and dwells within us through the Holy Spirit.
37 Nicholas Sacharov, I Love Therefore I Am: The Theological Legacy of Archimandrite
Sophrony (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2002), 50.
38 St Gregory the Theologian, Oration 2, 71 (PG 35, 480B).

Philip Kariatlis, A Forgotten Method of Theology: 37

Insights from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective
God and Moses on Mount Sinai, was also employed by St Gregory.39 And so,
for example, in his Second Theological Oration, the saint described his exis-
tential encounter with God, and the way that this had taken place, by taking
Moses ascent up Mount Sinai as his pretext to explain the means by which
one could gain knowledge of God and the extent of this knowledge as well.
In the excerpt that followsand which is quoted in full in light of its signifi-
cance for theological methodwe clearly see St Gregorys understanding
of divine knowledge described in experiential terms, an experience of the
immediacy of God which, at the same time, surpasses discursive rationality:
What experience of this have I had, you friends of truth, her initiates,
her lovers as I am? I was running with a mind to see God [
] and so it was that I ascended the mount. I
penetrated the cloud [ ], became enclosed in
it, detached from matter and material things and concentrated, so far
as might be, in myself. But when I directed my gaze, I scarcely saw the
averted figure of God [ ], and this whilst
sheltering in the rock, God the Word incarnate for us. Peering in, I saw
not the nature prime, inviolate, self apprehended (by self I mean the
Trinity), the nature as it all abides within the first veil and is hidden
by the Cherubim, but as it reaches us at its furthest remove from God,
being, so far as I can understand, the grandeur, or as the divine David
calls it the majesty inherent in the created things he has brought
forth and governs. All these indications [] of himself that
he has left behind him are Gods averted figure. They are, as it were,
shadowy reflections of the Sun in water, reflections which display to
eyes too weak, because too impotent to gaze at it, the Sun overmaster-
ing perception in the purity of light. Thus and thus only, can you speak
of God [] For were a thing all heavenly, all super-celestial even, far
more sublime in nature than ourselves, far nearer God, its remoteness
from him and from his perfect apprehension is much greater than its
superiority to our low, heavy compound.40
The overarching point of this clear, yet at the same time, complicated
passage is twofold: firstly, to underscore the possibility for a real encounter
with God and, in so doing, to bring to the fore the existential dimension of

39 For a more detailed analysis of the ascensional understanding of theology, see Philip
Kariatlis, Dazzling Darkness: The Mystical or Theophanic Theology of St Gregory of
Nyssa, Phronema 27, no. 2 (2012): 99123.
40 Oration 28, 3 (PG 36, 29AB).

38 Colloquium 47/1 2015

divine knowledge understood as a gift of Gods illumination. Already, in the
opening section of Oration 28, St Gregory had portrayed his understanding
of divine knowledge in terms of illumination when speaking of the Holy
Trinity as the single Godheads single radiance, by mysterious paradox one
in its distinctions and distinct in its connectedness [
].41 Secondly,
the passage clearly highlights that, whilst being born out of an experience of
Gods immediacy, divine knowledge is, at the same time, marked by a radi-
cal transcendence. Such a distinction allowed St Gregory to put forward the
possibility for genuine knowledge of God whilst at the same time uphold-
ing the ontological gap between the uncreated otherness of God and the
created limitations of human statements.
The ascent up the mountain signified first and foremost the immediacy
of God and the possibility for a genuine encounter with God. It was here
that God had revealed himself to Moses; yet, as we shall see, this revelation
was one marked by immanence and transcendence. Written as a response to
the Eunomian claim that the inner being of God could not be exhaustively
known, St Gregorys Second Theological Oration repeatedly highlighted the
impossibility of human thought to grasp exhaustively the inner being of
God. Moses ascent into the cloud signified, for St Gregory, a progressive
realization of the inaccessibility and incomprehensibility of Gods prime
nature resulting in a vision of an averted image of God. Citing Plato
who had taught to know God is hard, but to tell of him impossible,42 St
Gregory in fact went a step further arguing that to tell of God [] is
not possible [] but to know him [] is even less possible
[].43 St Gregory immediately explained this in terms of the
inadequacy of human language to grasp so great a matter44 as is the inner
nature of God which is primal and unique, not to say all transcending.45
Far from this implying that nothing could be said of God with certainty,
it was meant as a reminder that human beings will never be able to ex-
press all there is to know about God. In the same oration, he referred to
the incomprehensibility of the deity to the human mind and its totally

41 Oration 28, 1 (PG 36, 25D28A).

42 Oration 28, 4 (PG 36, 29C).
43 Oration 28, 4 (PG 36, 29C).
44 Oration 28, 4 (PG 36, 29C).
45 Oration 28, 31 (PG 36, 72C).

Philip Kariatlis, A Forgotten Method of Theology: 39

Insights from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective
unimaginable grandeur.46 As elsewhere, here St Gregory underscored that
God was not simply greater than creaturely existence by degree but infinite-
ly so, so that even the category of greatness is exceeded [
, ].47 Again,
in his Second Theological Oration, he wrote: No one has yet discovered or
ever shall discover what God is in his nature and essence.48 The whole point
to such statements was to lay stress on the uniqueness of God in an abso-
lute sense, namely that all terms are created and ultimately inapplicable to
God.49 God is incomparably greater even than the idea of greatness. John
Behr correctly notes that such an approach to God laid open the scope of
theological vision that approaches its subject with awe and reverence rather
than imprisoning it.50 And so, for St Gregory, humanitys creaturely finitude
could be liberated as it approached divine infinitude.
Such statementswhich came to be characterized, in the Eastern
Orthodox tradition, by the term apophaticare an attempt to emphasize
the fact that Gods inner being infinitely surpasses creaturely limitations of
language. For St Gregory, such statements would in no way want to deny the
possibility of genuinely knowing God, but rather they were meant to affirm
that the very experience of the mystery of Godan experience which is
real and genuineis one, nevertheless, that the mind will never fully con-
tain or wholly grasp. Accordingly, in laying stress on the necessary limita-
tions of all conceptual thinking, the Eastern Orthodox tradition, in no way
would want to deplore the use of coherent and discursive reasoning; rather
it would want to highlight its limitations due to the intrinsic ineffability of
the inner essential being of God and the finitude of creaturely existence.51

46 Oration 28, 11 (PG 36, 40B).

47 Cf. Oration 18, 16 (PG 35, 1005A).
48 Oration 28, 17 (PG 36, 48C).
49 John McGuckin succinctly sums up this approach when he writes that syllogistic form
is inimical to the consideration of theology. John Anthony McGuckin, St Gregory
of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press,
2001), 282.
50 John Behr, The Nicene Faith, Formation of Christian Theology, vol. 2, pt. 2 (Crestwood,
NY: SVS Press, 2004), 341.
51 Beeley points out the impossibility of fully grasping the inner being of God due to
our creaturely existence when he writes: To image in that God can be comprehended
reflects a serious misunderstanding of the relationship between the nature of God and
created existence. For Gregory the incomprehensibility of God is the necessary result of
the infinitude of Gods being and the finitude of creaturely existence, including human
thought. Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus, 94.

40 Colloquium 47/1 2015

Statements, therefore, referring to God as unknowable are in no way a
denial of any knowledge of God, but paradoxically another type of knowl-
edge where all positive proclamations are negated precisely because God is
experienced and known to be beyond them. Indeed, even negative state-
ments are repealed because God also transcends these. Indeed, it is impor-
tant to note that references to Gods unknowability are in fact a genuine
attestation that knowledge of God is precisely an experience whose content
will nonetheless never be exhaustively rationalized or intellectualized. Seen
from this perspective, in no way would the Orthodox tradition deny the
possibility of knowing God, but rather affirm that, in approaching and ex-
periencing the mystery of God, no statements can even contain or wholly
grasp the fullness of Gods transcendence. Consequently, an openness on the
part of the seeker for mystery is a necessary method towards encountering
God. Furthermore, to know God as unknowable, far from being a denial of
knowledge, is in fact a super-affirmationa positive experiencenamely,
an intimate and immediate encounter which is experienced precisely as one
transcending all language and thought. Indeed, in such an understanding,
knowledge of God is understood entirely as a gift of divine gracewhat St
Gregory described as the grace of the Trinity and of the Godhead one in
three [ , ]52and not
a result of a human persons cognitive faculties.
The apophatic method for approaching God needs to be held together
with the cataphatic. Real communion with God necessitates some form
of positive discourse of God. Using a mathematical analogy, St Gregory
captured the necessity of both:
An inquirer into the nature of a real being cannot stop short at
saying what it is not but must add to his denials a positive affirma-
tion. The point of this is that comprehension of the object of
knowledge should be effected both by negation of what the thing
is not and also by positive assertions of what it is. A person who
tells you what God is not but fails to tell you what he is, is rather
like someone who, asked what twice five are, answers, not two, not
three, not four, not five, not twenty, not thirty. It is much sim-
pler, much briefer, to indicate all that something is, not by indicat-
ing what it is, than to reveal what it is by denying what it is not.53

52 Oration 28, 31 (PG 36, 72C).

53 Oration 28, 9 (PG 36, 37AB).

Philip Kariatlis, A Forgotten Method of Theology: 41

Insights from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective
Paradoxically, for St Gregory, theological expressionslimited though they
may beare necessary. Yet, what is all important, is the realization that
these do not confine Gods grandeur. It is important to acknowledge that
approaching God is like employing a small tool on big constructions.54 In
further reflecting on this, St Gregory spoke of the inability of human beings
to gaze directly at the sun. Rather, in the same way that the sun can be be-
held in its shadowy reflections in the water, the same method is equally ap-
plicable to God. St Gregory justified this assertion by making references to
a list of biblical figuresPaul, Jacob, Solomonwho knew and prophesied
in part (see 1 Cor 13:9).55 Moreover, his christological interpretation of the
averted figure of God as God the Word incarnate for us [
]56 emphasizes St Gregorys existentialor in this case pros-
opocentric [person-centred]method for attaining knowledge of the di-
vine. St Gregory noted that God did in fact appear to Moses on Mt Sinai and
so it follows that believers do in fact have a means for attaining knowledge
of God.
In his quest to present the means by which God is known, St Gregory
made an important distinction between existence and being. St Greg-
ory essentially affirmed that it is one thing to acknowledge that God ex-
istsand to enjoy Gods presence without necessarily being able to fully
explain thisand it is quite another to claim to have thoroughly compre-
hended the nature of Gods being, namely, Gods inner life and essence.
In reflecting upon this distinction in his Second Theological Oration, St
Gregory asked a series of beautifully phrased questions covering all as-
pects of creation (both the animal and plant kingdoms together with the
heavens above) in order to lead his listeners to acknowledge that even
whilst these could be enjoyed they could not always necessarily be fully
comprehended. In this regard, he wrote:
In what way is mind conveyed and communicated by speech? How
does speech go through the air and enter along with objects? There
are still questions more basic than these. What makes food nour-
ishment for the body and speech for the soul? ... There are many facts
about speech and hearing, how sounds are produced through the
vocal organs and received by the ears, how sounds and ears are knit

54 Oration 28, 21 (PG 36, 53A).

55 See Oration 28, 18 (PG 36, 49AB) and 28, 2021 (PG 36 52C53A).
56 Oration 28, 3 (PG 36, 29A).

42 Colloquium 47/1 2015

 together by the imprinted impulse transmitted by the intervening air?
Turn your attention to the different kinds of plants, to the artistry
displayed in their foliage affording at once the maximum pleasure to
the eyes consider too the lavish abundance of fruits, the special
beauty of the particularly important kinds. Examine the potentialities
the juices of their roots and the scents their flowers have, not just the
pleasant but the medically useful ones too.57
His point in all this was very clear and is stated at the conclusion of this
oration: to prove that even the nature of beings on the second level is too
much for our minds, let alone Gods primal and unique, not to say all-tran-
scending, nature.58 St Gregory wonderfully highlighted the fact that if the
human mind could not comprehend the wisdom with which every visible
creature was created and functioned, how could it ever expect to possess
exhaustive knowledge of the unfathomable depths of Gods being? For this
reason, he concluded that all humanity could do was simply enjoy the pres-
ence of God and Gods created world, giving praise and glory to God for this
mystical experience.
C onclusion
The article has attempted to present some of the most salient features of the
early Patristic vision of theology, especially as exemplified through St Gregory
the Theologian in the fourth century. In response to the various challenges of
his day, it was shown that this father was able to articulate a clear understand-
ing of theological method. Understood primarily as a gift of Gods self-revela-
tion, it was seen that the means by which one approached theology necessarily
implied a process of purification and a prayerful predisposition. Accordingly,
the early Christian insistence that knowledge of Godnamely, theology
was inextricably linked with the condition of one seeking God, was brought to
the fore. In this way, a commitment to insights gained could not be incongru-
ous to a persons life. Having highlighted this existential methodology, the ar-
ticle gave prominence to the fact that it was only after one had been formed
and ultimately transformed by such an experience, that one was able to the-
ologize in a life-giving manner. Indeed, this existentially conditioned means
by which one approached theology also paradoxically involved adhering to a
method which affirmed an unknowable aspect without this implying a void.

57 Oration 28, 2229 (PG 36, 56A - 69A).

58 Oration 28, 31 (PG 36, 72C).

Philip Kariatlis, A Forgotten Method of Theology: 43

Insights from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective
 From all the above, it may be suggested that theology is ultimately
enjoyed rather than exhaustively comprehended. Indeed, beyond the au-
dacity which could possibly be born in believing that the entirety of Gods
inner life could be known, such an attitude could easily lead a person to
a lethargic boredom no longer fascinated at the never-ending surprises of
Gods endless and ineffable essence. Therefore the unknowing aspect of
God, far from creating a cold distance or isolation on Gods part can be seen
to be the greatest benefaction and indication of Gods immeasurable love for
humankind, in that it shows that the gifts bestowed by God in this life and
beyond will never be exhausted; on the contrary they will forever happily
surprise since Gods essence is inexhaustible. It is most appropriate to finish
with a quote from St Gregory:
To the extent that the divine can be comprehended it may draw us to
itselffor what is completely incomprehensible is also beyond hope,
beyond attainment, and that to the extent that it is beyond our com-
prehension it might stir up our wonder, and through wonder might
be yearned for all the more, all through our yearning might purify us,
and in purifying us might make us like God; and when we have be-
come this, that he might then associate with us intimately as friends.59

59 Oration 38, 7 (PG 36, 318C).

44 Colloquium 47/1 2015