T O W A R D A N E C O L O G Y O F

T R A N S F I G U R A T I O N Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment,

Nature, and Creation

E D I T E D BY

J O H N C H R Y S S A V G I S A N D

B R U C E V . F O L T Z

F O R D H A M U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S New York • 2013

120 A R I S T O T L E PAPANIKOLAOU

cease to be; death and destruction wi l l not involve a return to non-being, for 'the word of the Lord endureth forever' (1 Pet. 1, 25), and the divine wi l l is unchangeable."^"

One of Zizioulas's greatest contributions to theology, one he in patt owes to Lossky, is the recovery of the soteriological and existential significance of the trinitarian category of hypostasis. Hypostasis cannot simply mean that which differentiates the persons of the Trinity; the hypostasis of Christ is that in and through which we are saved, in and through we are btought into communion wi th the divine. Theology needs, howevet, a more positive un­derstanding of created nature i f it is to coherently talk about God's creation and salvation of the wodd. I think the real challenge for Orthodox theology in the future is to bring Bulgakov, Lossky, and Zizioulas together into a syn­thesis, meaning to find a way to relate coherently Zizioulas's own trinitarian theology of personhood with the traditional Orthodox distinction between essence and energies, together with Bulgakov's concept of Sophia. Such a synthesis, I think, would be especially fruitful for an Orthodox theology of creation.

T H E T H E O L O G I C A L - E T H I C A L C O N T R I B U T I O N S O F A R C H I M A N D R I T E

S O P H R O N Y ( S A K F I A R O V ) T O E N V I R O N M E N T A L I S S U E S

Perry T. Hamalis

I- ' he subject of environmental issues and Orthodox Christianity does not, typically, bring to mind the names of Fr. Sophrony (Sakharov) or

his mentor in the spiritual life, St. Silouan the Athonite. Indeed, even those who knew Elder Sophrony personally or who are familiar with his writing would likely not identify "the environment" as a subject on which he had something unique or especially significant to offer. Monasticism, the "per­son," repentance, prayer, or the spiritual life more broadly, yes—but environ­mental ethics, no. Having said this, however, we should note, first, that St. Silouan's teachings have been cited within such landmark documents as the I'xumenical Pattiarchate's 1990 statement Orthodoxy and the Ecological Cri­sis} and, second, that thinkers including Jean-Claude Larchet, Metropoli-lans Kallistos Ware, and John Zizioulas have included some analysis of St. Silouan's views on the animal and plant wodd wi th in the context of more i',cneral works on the saint's teachings.^ In what follows, I wi l l argue that Fr. Sophrony's theological-ethical vision includes teachings that contribute ill important ways to Orthodoxy's engagement wi th environmental issues. More specifically, by drawing from both Fr. Sophrony's published writings .ind from material collected through inrerviews wi th members of the monas-I ic community at Essex, I w i l l defend the claim that it is his understanding 111 the meaning of the human person that holds together Fr. Sophrony's nor­mative teachings about the nonhuman sphere of crearion. I wi l l discuss four .iicas where Fr. Sophrony's most significant teachings seem to lie: (1) his ac-i uiint (inspired by St. Silouan) of the status of nonhuman and human life, (.') his postlapsarian anthropology, (3) his conservation mindset, and (4) his

121

122 PERRY T . HAMALIS

teachings on hypostatic prayer. But first, 1 w i l l begin with a brief biographi­cal note.

Fr. Sophrony: Biography and the Influence of St. Silouan

Fr. Sophrony was born Sergei Symeonivich Sakharov in 1896 to Russian Orthodox parents living in Moscow. From the time of his childhood, Fr, Sophrony was inclined to contemplate metaphysical questions of death, meaning, and eternity.'' His unquenchable pursuit of the eternal manifested itself in multiple ways. He studied painting at Moscow's Academy of Arts and at the National School of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture, seeking meaning through atristic expression. He also dedicated between seven and eight intense yeats to Far Eastern transcendental mediration—something hi' lamented later in his life.' Fr. Sophrony left Russia in 1921 and, aftet brici stays in Italy and Germany, settled in Paris. Here he enjoyed some success as an artist, exhibiting his paintings in two prestigious Parisian salons. Havinj', returned to the Orthodox faith in 1924 and still on a qtiest for God, he en rolled at St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute, where he met and w;u influenced by Sergei Bulgakov and Nicholas Berdyaev. l l i e academic study of theology, howevet, did not satisfy Fr. Sophrony's thirst for the divine, anil in 1925 he departed from France for the peninsula of Mt . Athos, where lu' was ro spend the next twenty-two years of his life as a member of the Russian Orthodox Monastery of St. Panteleimon. It was there in 1930 that he mcl Statetz Silouan, the man who would shape his spiritual life and teachinj's most profoundly and whose holiness was officially recognized through can onization by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1987. For eight years, the moiiL Sophrony pursued God under the direct counsel of Staretz Silouan, and Sil ouan, in turn, revealed to Sophrony the details and the wisdom of his spiri trial experience. After Silouan's death in 1938, Fr. Sophrony left the commuinil monastic life for the Athonite wilderness. He was ordained a priest ami served as confessor to several Athonite communities. In 1947, Fr. Sophronv returned to France, in part so that he could edit and publish the wtitinj','. and teachings of his beloved elder.'' While there, he became a trusted friciui of Vladimir Lossky and coedited. the periodical Messager de I'Exarchat ilit Patriarche Russe en Europe Occidentale. Prohibited by his deteriorating health from returning to Athos, and at the request of several spiritual children whn had gathered around h im in Paris, Fr. Sophrony established the communilv of St. John the Baptist in Essex, England, where today over forry monks anil nuns coexist in prayer, realizing concretely the theological-ethical vision W articulated. It was on July 11, 1993, at the monastery he had cofoundcd

C O N T R I B L I T I O N S OF A R C H I M A N D R I T E SOPHRONY (SAKHAROV) 123

(hirty-four years prior, that Fr. Sophrony reposed peacefully. Since then, I here has been a steady interest in his theological-ethical writings among C )rthodox and non-Orthodox, academics and nonacademics, in the East and I he West/

An assessment of Fr. Sophrony's environmental teachings properly begins with a brief consideration of St. Silouan's normative views on the subject. Fr. Sophrony insisted that his first book was strictly a rearticulation of what his rkler had. entrusred to him. He was—in his language—a mere "postman" 'Iclivering the words he had received.*^ While as scholars we might question I he possibility of such pure hermeneutics, the point remains: from Fr. Soph-lony's perspective, Silouan's teachings were authoritative, inerrant, saving wotds. "Throughout my time with Blessed Staretz Silouan," he wtites, " I ncvet for an instant doubted that his words were the 'words of life eternal.'"' I'Jsewhere he states, " I am not conscious of the slightest resistance to the Siaretz' teaching, feeling in my heart that his is the final word.''^^ While sev­eral outstanding voices within Orthodoxy influenced Fr. Sophrony's ethical vision, none affected h im as decisively or as unequivocally as St. Silouan."

The Leaf: A n Image of Nonhuman and Human Life

Silouan's contribution to environmental thought is neither systematic nor ikrailed. It does, however, reflect a central emphasis on the human person ind his or her salvation in a way that clearly conrinues in Fr. Sophrony's nor-nintive vision. Let me note briefly two dimensions of St. Silouan's environ­mental teachings that carry over in this way, linking them through the Ullage of a leaf

Ft. Sophrony writes that he witnessed in St. Silouan "an astonishingly li.irmonious conjunction of seemingly incompatible extremes,"'" and this w.is certainly true in Silouan's teachings pettaining to plant and animal life. Ill a well-known passage, Fr. Sophrony recounts:

I remember once walking with [the Staretz] from the monastery to |a hermit's hut]. We carried walking-sticks, usual in mountainous re­gions. On each side of rhe path there were clumps of tall wi ld grass. With the idea of not letting the path get overgrown I hir out with my stick at one of the stalks. . . . The Statetz thought this rough of me and shook his head [disapprovingly]. . . . I understood, and felt ashamed of myself'3

In his own wrirings, St. Silouan expands on this point. "The Spirit of God," In- writes, "teaches the soul to love every living thing so that she would have

124 PERRY T . HAMALIS

no harm come to even a gteen leaf on a ttee, or trample underfoot a flowet ol the field."''' On the one hand, then, St. Silouan both exhibits and calls for a profound sensitivity toward all living things, regardless of species, f ie is ;i "preservationist" in a deep and broad sense and to an extent not frequently-witnessed among Christian thinkers writing on such themes. For h im, the Spirit of God seeks the preservation of all life and seeks a response of lovinj' respect toward all living things from every human person. Consider another passage from St. Silouan's notebook:

Once I needlessly killed a fly. Tlie poor thing crawled on the ground, hurt and mangled, and for rhree whole days I wept over my cruelty to a living creature. . . . [Another time,] it happened that some bats bred on the balcony of the stoteroom where 1 was, and I poured boiling wa­ter over them, and once again 1 shed many tears on this account and since then T have never harmed any living creature.

What Fr. Sophrony takes from these accounts is a radical preservationist ai titude toward nonhuman life, one that would seem to lie beyond the tc proach of even the most devout environmentalist. Yet what is also clear is that the emphasis hete is not merely on the intrinsic value of leaves, flies, oi bats but rather encompasses rhe efl-ect of human responses to nonhuman life upon the spiritual condition and salvation of persons, l l i a t is, St. Silouan and Fr. Sophrony seem ro be calling for a response within each human bein|', akin to that of a caretaker, a shepherd, or even a priest. To harm needlessly part of God's nonhuman creation is to betray this high calling, causiiij', God's Spirit to withdtaw. In addition, to understand truly the significance ol this betrayal leads to the k ind of weeping St. Silouan described above. ^

The other side of this "radical preservation ism" is where the "harmoniou'. conjunction of seemingly incompatible extremes" noted earlier becomes ap parent. Put simply, St. Silouan unapologetically prioritizes human person', over nonhuman creation. As an Orrhodox monk, he ate moderate portion*, of vegetables and seafood, harvested hay, and chopped trees for firewood,' and there was no dilemma in doing so. Furthermore, St. Silouan writes ex plicitly against overattachments to animals. In a passage that has scandalizcil many readers, he states, "Thete are people who attach themselves to animals, and stroke and fondle and talk to them It is silly to do this. Feed aiii mals and cattle, and do not beat them—in this consists man's duty of kiiul ness towards them; but to become attached, to love, caress and talk lo them—that is folly for the soul.""* Accotding to Ft. Sophtony, the StarcK considered such responses toward animals (so common and often extreme among pet owners in our society) to be "a perversion ol the order establishc

C O N T R r B O T I O N S OF A R C H I M A N D R I T E SOPHRONY (SAKHAROV) 125

by God and contrary to the [normative] state of man (c£ Gen 2:20)."'^ Yet here again St. Silouan's core soteriological concern becomes apparent. I t is not that genuine caring relationships wi th animals, including pets, are wrong but rather that extreme anthropomorphisms, he contends, imply a danger­ous attachment to earthly things and a distorted prioritization that draws one's mind away frona the love of God and neighbor,^" away from the gteat-cst divine commandment which is—in Fr. Sophrony's view—itself God's nncreared, saving energy.^'

What seems to be at work, then, is a fundamental difference in status and value between human and nonhuman life in both St. Silouan's and Ft. Soph-lony's teachings, and this brings us back to the image of the leaf, but with a significantly different meaning this time. Fr. Sophrony uses a wonderful va­riety of terms and analogies in order to express the mystery of the human petson and the unity of humanity. Because of their Trinitarian grounding, he prefers theological terms like "human hypostasis" persona-hypostasis" and 'hypostatic principle in man."''^ In several works one finds him invoking such terms to make bold claims about divine-hunnan commensurability. Slating, for example, "mankind is one being but multi-hypostatic, just as ( lod is One Being in l l i ree Persons.""' In other contexts, however, Fr. Soph­rony appeals to biological images and describes the entire human race as a single organism" and—as I have been h i n r i n g — a s a leafy t ree .Consider

(he following passage from one of Fr. Sophrony's addresses to the monastic 1 ommtmity in Essex:

"Love thy neighbor as thyself." It was given to me to understand this commandment in the fotm of a gigantic tree, of cosmic dimensions, whose root is Adam. Myself, I am only a little leaf on a branch of this tree. But the tree is not foreign to me; it is the basis of my being. I be­long to it. To pray for rhe whole world is to pray for this tree in its total­ity, with its milliards of leaves. '

I'or Fr. Sophrony, every human being is a leaf that^has grown out of the root oi Adam, and, as such, each human person remains ontologically united both to that root and to every other leaf on the tree. We wi l l return to the idea of prayer for the "whole Adam" below, but for now two other points •hould be made that carry environmental implications. First, this extraordi-ii.iry emphasis on humanity's ontological unity levels a sharp critique upon ,ill forms of individualism. Notwithstanding personal distinctiveness, all oi humanity—every human being born in hisrory—is onrologically united. I here are so many erhical ramifications stemming from this single, very

.'.imple teaching that one would be hard pressed to overstate its significance.

126 PERRY T . HAMALIS

While I wi l l return to this point below, for now we should note that this anthropological claim sheds important light on the meaning of a saving word or spiritual counsel Ft. Sophrony received from St. Silouan and re­peated frequently: "Our brother is our life"^'' No one is a Christian alone, and no one's spiritual development can occur in a mode derached from other human beings.

The tree image is also important because Ft. Sophrony makes it very clear in other passages that while human beings are like leaves on a tree of the to­tal Adam, organically connected with one another, we are also fundamen­tally different from actual leaves and ftom all of the nonhuman creation in a most important way: among God's creatures lue alone are hypostatic. Flies, bats, and leaves, dogs, cats, and trees are to be respecred and should not be harmed unnecessarily, but, since they are not hypostatic beings—not beings cteated in the divine image—their value temains relative to the earthly realm. To be overly attached to them is to be overly attached to the world. In His Life Is Mine, Fr. Sophrony writes, 'As the image and likeness of the Absolute, man is conscious that in his spirir he transcends every other form of narural being."^^ And in On Prayer, he makes it clear that only hypo­static beings exist in the realm of eternity.^^ Unlike the love of animals oi' other nonhypostatic creatures, thete is no proper l imit on love directed to a person—wherher divine or human, for to love one's neighbor is to ascend to the eternal realm and, rhus, fulfill one's divine purpose. Fr. Sophrony writes:

[The true ascetic] does not deny the reality and value of the creation. A l l he does is not to tegard it as absolute, not to deify it or consider it an end and a value in itself God did not create the world in order that He Himself might live the life of the creature. He created it in order to associate man wirh His own Divine Life. A n d when man does not ar­rive at deification, which cannot be achieved without his own collabo­ration, the very meaning of his existence disappears.

So here, once again, Fr. Sophrony's environmental teaching about the status of the natural wodd rraces back to his understanding of the meaning and salvation of the human person.

The Fall, the Hypostatis, and the Environment

In a rich passage from His Life Is Mine, Fr. Sophrony articulates a series ol claims about the fallen human condition. He writes:

C O N T R I B U T I O N S OF A R C H I M A N D R I T E SOPHRONY (SAKHAROV) 127

In the person of the first Adam, all mankind suffered a fearful catastro­phe, an alienation which is the root of all alienations. Tlie body was wounded, the skeleton smashed, the countenance—the image of God—distofted. Succeeding generations have added many anothet injury and broken bone ro the wounds of the first created man. The whole human corpus is sick.^"

I lere we see rhe graphic flipside of Fr. Sophrony's teaching on the unity of humanity. Yes, each human person remains homoousios with every other, but I lie Fall has effected a fragmentation and infection within the "total Adam's" l)ody. Retutning to his tree image, we might say that, according to Fr. Soph­rony, the leaves began turning brown—or became diseased—when our fore-lathers sinned, but we have not fallen oft the branches. The point rhat seems environmentally significant, howevet, comes towatd the end of the passage, where Ft. Sophrony writes, "Succeeding generations have added many an­othet injury and broken bone ro the wounds of the first creared man." Simi-liuiy, in another work he writes, " I inhetited the terrible fall of Adam, the fall made worse by his sons down the ages; the fall which I aggravate every day ol my life."" Fr. Sophrony's point hete seeiTis to be that, while the Fall catties ( ertain unchanging, perennial consequences, i t also carries cumulative and distinctively contemporary effects. In other words, rhe fallen human condi­tion changes, to some extent, with time. Typically, it gets worse. Flere again the basis for Fr. Sophrony's view seems to be his teaching on the ontological unity of humanity. Since a shared—albeit fragmented—nature unites all of humanity, it makes sense that the sins of each human being and each genera-lion affect the commonly held and transmitted nature.

When I began reflecting on the topic of environmental ethics within Ft. Sophrony's teachings, it was exactly this point about the postlapsarian condi-I ion, including dimensions that ate historically and culturally determined, that hist came to my mind. When Fr. Sophrony discusses such dimensions, most I il them do not refer direcrly to the environment, but some do. One example he notes pertains to our modern views on science. ''Contempotary science," he M ates, "has developed considerably in the domain of mastering rhe forces of nature. But what a result! Tlie Creator of nature has each time been ousted .more and more from the world and the human conscience."^^ For Fr. Soph-tony, the fact that people are born roday into a culture that views technology IS we do and seeks to master nature through science as we do is a distinctive part of our generarion's inherited fallen condition. While he emphasizes the significance of changes in human attitudes for properly diagnosing the fallen

128 P E R R Y T . HAMALIS

condition, it seems appropriate to extend this insight to the health of the natural world as well. Environmentally, things are getting worse—this much we know. I believe that Fr. Sophrony's account of postlapsarian anthropol­ogy can provide a theological tubric for thinking about how each human being's sins against the natural world and each generation's contriburions to the sickness that permeates all creation are appropriated and passed on. Once more we see that it is his understanding of the meaning and the salva­tion of the human petson that directs Ft. Sophrony's environmental ethics.

"Hie Sweat of My Brother": Conservation in Hypostatic Perspective

Perhaps one of the most profound contributions Fr. Sophrony makes to envi­ronmental issues came out only in the context of semisttuctured interviews I held with various members of the monastic community in Essex and pertains directly to the way he lived. Fr. Sophrony was a conservationist before "being green" became fashionable. He cared deeply about the ttees on the monastery property and personally selected and oversaw the planting of different variet­ies on the grounds. One monastic shared with me a conversation held with him about whether ot not to plant a new oak tree, given that we do not know how much time remains before Christ's Second Coming. When this monastic replied by saying, "Yes, Father, I believe it is a sign of hope for rhe world to plant it," he responded with a smile and said, "Fm glad you said that!"

What I heard most ftom the monks and nuns I interviewed, however, was that Fr. Sophrony was adamant about not wasting energy or goods. Lights, for instance, should never be on i f no one is in the room. During the 197()s, as patt of a conservarion campaign, the British government issued stickers that could be placed around a light switch and that read, "Switch off. Save it!" Fr. Sophrony enthusiastically applied these stickets to switches through out the monastery (and there are a few that remain up today). Similarly, to save energy and watet, Ft. Sophrony would boil a full pot for rea and then pour whatever he did nor use immediately into a large thetmos in order to avoid having to leheat the pot. Furthetmore, when the latge thermos wa'. half empty, he would pour the remaining warer into a smaller thermos lo keep it hot enough, thus tefraining from using more gas or electricity. Oiu-monk told me that at meals Fr. Sophrony would never put more water inio his glass than what he could drink, and he would never leave a drop in his glass or food on his plate. Another member of rhe community recalled that, in his sermons on the miraculous feeding wi th the loaves and fish (cf. Lk. 9:10-18; M t . 14:13-21; M k . 6:32-44; Jn. 6:1-14), Fr. Sophrony often fo cused on Jesus's instruction to "Gather up the fragments left over, that noth

C O N T R I B U T I O N S O F A R C H I M A N D R I T E S O P H R O N Y (SAKHAROV) 129

ing may be lost," offering a conservarionist interpretation of the pericope. NX ith respect to recycling, Fr. Sophrony insisted on reusing items long before such efforts became poptdar. When he received a letter in the mail, for ex­ample, he would cut the envelopes and use them for nore taking and even for cards in the libraty cataloging system. To this day, members of the Comn-iu-nity of St. John the Baptist often repurpose used envelopes for personal correspondence.

Were these aversions ro "wasting" merely a reflection of Ft. Sophrony's upbringing? Was he strictly concerned about saving the monastery's limited funds? When this question arose, the answer I received was a profound ex­pression of Fr. Sophrony's ethical vision. Yes, I was told, Fr. Sophrony was quire careful with the community's financial resources, but this was not what drove his behavior. Was it, then, his loving respect for the natural world? l l i i s , too, motivated him, I was told; however, it also was not the primary factor. What, then, was left? "Fr. Sophrony was so keen about this issue," I was told, "because he did not want to waste his brother's sweat." For Fr. Sophrony, to toss away an empty envelope meant that the human labor that went into producing that envelope was not fully respected. In addition, it meant that more work would be created for his brother, who would have to collect and dispose of the trash he generated and would have to make more notepaper to meet demand. In Fr. Sophrony's view, wasting narural resources indicated—first of all—a lack of neighbor love, a lack of sensitivity to the hu­man sweat and sacrifice that go into producing goods. And, in his words, "acquiring this Love is the ultimate purpose of Christian asceticism."^'' For Fr. Sophrony, rherefore, one's conservationist/ascetic relationship to nonhu­man creation shapes and reflects one's hypostatic relationships with one's neighbof and with God. Waste not, for "our brother is our life." Again, it is the meaning and salvation of the human person that grounds Fr. Sophrony's environmental insights.

The Aim: Hypostatic Prayer and the Royal Priesthood

Hie final envitonmental contribution I want to note from Fr. Sophrony brings us back to the opening section on what sets human petsons apart (rom the rest of the created world. While Fr. Sophrony was not opposed to socially conscious governmental policies—indeed, he applauded some such efforts—he gave priority to prayer. "Prayer is more important than any other activity, whether social or political, in the field of science or the arts."^' Much insightful material has been written on the topic of "prayer for the Total Adam" in St. Silouan, what Fr. Sophrony also refers to as hypostatic prayer,

130 P E R R Y T . HAMALIS

Gethsemane prayer, and liturgical prayer, and an extended discussion lies beyond our present scope. ^ Nonetheless, we should at least note that this highest of human activities encompasses not only all our fellow human be­ings since the beginning of history—not only each of the "milliatds o( leaves" on the gteat tree of Adam—but also the whole of nonhuman cre­ation.^'' I t is an activity possible only because of the hypostatic ptinciplc within human beings, which enables an enlargement of one's heart ro cosmic proportions''* and through which man becomes "the connecting principle berween God and the rest of creation."^' For Fr. Sophrony, hypostatic ptayer is the highest expression of environmental stewardship, precisely because it both sanctifies nonhuman creation and fulfills the human person's most distinctive—and dignified—capacity. Hypostatic prayer is also an activity that Ft. Sophrony equates wi th the univetsal human calling to the "royal priesthood" (c£ 1 Pet. 2:9).''° It reflects every human person's Eucharistic tole and responsibility as a member of the body of Chtist. Actualizing this high­est capacity, he contends, effects a restoration and healing both within thai great tree and between humanity and all other living things.'" Hypostadc prayer, finally, is a pure expression of love, a love that participates in and imi­tates Christ's infinite love for us and for the wotld He creared.

Conclusion

Neither St. Silouan nor Fr. Sophrony ever authored a systematic work on environmenral erhics. Nor were either of them engaged in properly polirical activities with the aim of shaping public policy. They were, instead, Ortho dox monks living out their calling to love God and neighbor. However, I have argued rhat Fr. Sophrony's written and unwritten teachings nonetheless carry important insights for critical teflection on one of the most acute social problems of our time, the condition of the natural wodd, and I have sought to demonstrate that for Fr. Sophrony this problem is at its core both anthro pological and soteriological. Through his claims regarding the value and in terconnectedness of crearion, his insight into the hnk between environmenral destruction and the current generation's fallen condition, his sttict conserva tionism, and his affirmation of hypostatic ptayer as humanity's highest call ing, Fr. Sophrony enriches our understanding of environmental issues and reminds us that a hermeneutical key for examining these issues is Orthodo.x Chrisrianity's theology of the person. As thinkers and church leaders con rinue to harvest Orthodoxy's abundant theological and ascetical tradition for resources relevant to environmenral ethics, the example and teachings ol Archimandrite Sophrony merit out ongoing attention.

T H E C O S M O L O G Y O F T H E E U C H A R J S T

George Theokritoff

A grain of wheat falls to the earth and decomposes, and is then raised wi th manifold increase by the spirit of God, who contains all things; by wisdom it is then used by human beings, receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ. In the same way our bodies, being nourished by it, wi l l be deposited in the earth and decom­pose there, and then rise at their appointed time, as the Word of God grants them resurrection to the glory o f God.

—St. frenaeus, Against Heresies, V2, 3 (trans. E. Theokritoff)

H ere, in a statement that focuses on the work of God in the Euchatist, St. Irenaeus summarizes the essence of the Cosmology of the Eu-

I harisr in a seemingly simple yet profound statement. What I ptopose to do here is to approach this Cosmology from a different perspecrive, drawing on what we know of rhe workings of the Cosmos. We could usefully statt by asking the questions "What is bread?" and "What is wine?"

It needs hardly to be said that btead is made of flour, yeast (or leaven), and water, and wine by the fermentation of grape juice. What is produced by wheat (Irenaeus's "grain of wheat") and by the vine is ttansfotmed by human l.ibor ("used by human beings"). But this is not the only intervenrion of hu­man labor: the wheat is sown ("a grain of wheat falls to the earrh") and then ji,erminates, grows, bears ears of wheat ("raised with manifold increase by the Spirir of God"), and finally reaped, threshed, and the grains ground to give (lout. Similarly, vines have to be planted and grafted. They then gtow and bear fruit ("raised with manifold increase by the Spiiit of God"), and finally (lie gtapes are gathered and pressed. In this, we see the synergy of the trans-iormative power of God with human labot.

426 NOT£S TO PAGES 1 0 6 - 1 4

Creation as Communion in Contemporary Orthodox Theology / Aristotle Papanikolaou

1. Aristotle Papanikolaou, Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism, and Divine-Human Communion (South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006). See also Aristotle Papanikolaou, "Orthodoxy, Postmodernity, and Ecumenism: The Difference That Divine-Human Communion Make.&" Journal of Ecumenical Stud­ies Al, no. 4 (2007): 527-546.

2. Sergius Bulgakov, Sophia—The Wisdom of God: An Outline of Sophiology, rev. ed., trans. Patrick Thompson, O . Fielding Clark, and Xenia Braikevitc (1937; Hud­son, N.Y.: Lindisfarne, 1993), 25.

3. Ibid., 39. 4. Sergius Bulgakov, The Comforter, trans. Boris Jakim (1936; Grand Rapids,

Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004), 359-393. 5. Bulgakov, Sophia, 43. 6. Sergius Bulgakov, Tine Lamb of God, trans. Boris Jakim (1933; Grand Rapids,

Mich.; Eerdmans, 2008), 111. 7. Bulgakov, Tl)e Comforter, 63. 8. Bulgakov, Sophia, 48-49. 9. Ibid., 41. 10. Ibid., 54. 11. Bulgakov, The Comforter, 189. 12. Sergius Bulgakov, The Bride of the Lamb, trans. Boris Jakim (1945; Grand

Rapids, Mich.; Eerdmans, 2002), 39. Though first published in 1945, this book was finished in 1939.

13. Bulgakov, The Lamb of Cod, 103-104. • 14. Bulgakov, 14. 15. Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology (Crestwood, N.Y.; St. Vladimir's

Seminary Press, 1974), 96. 16. Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An hitroduction, trans. Ian Kesarcodi-

Watson and Ihita Kesarcodi-Watson (Crestwood, N.Y.; St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1978), 58.

17. Ibid.; emphasis mine. 18. Lossky, The Mystical Tlicology, 95; see also Vladimiir Lossky, "La notion des

'analogies' chez Denys Le Pseudo-Areopagite," Archives d'Histoire Doctrinale et Lit-

teraire du Moyen-Age 5 (1931): 287 19. Lossky, "La notion des 'analogies,'" 304-305. 20. For the evolution o(eros as a metaphysical principle in the patristic tradition,

see Bernard McGinn, "God as Eros: Metaphysical Foundations of Christian Mysti­cism," in New Perspectives on Historical Theology: Essays in Memory of John Meycn-dorff, ed. Bradley Nassif (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Eerdmans, 1996), 189-209. ^

21. "If God appears as light and then as darkness, this means—fot Gregory (of Nyssa)—that there is no vision of the divine essence and that union is presenred as a path which goes beyond vision, theoria, beyond intelligence, to the area where knowl

N O T E S TO PAGES 1 1 4 - 2 3 427

edge is suppressed and love alone remains, or rather where gnosis becomes agape: e de gnosis agape ginetai." Vladimir l.ossky, The Vision of God, trans. Ashleigh Moorhotise ;(Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1983), 88.

22. For a fuller elaboration of Lossky's theology of the Trinity in comparison with that of John Zizioulas, see my Being with God.

23. John Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness, ed. Paul McPartlan (London: T & T Clark, 2006), 220.

24. John Zizioulas, "Preserving God's Creation; Lecture Two," King's Theological Review 12 (1989): 43.

25. The absence of Sophia is not so curious, since Bulgakov's influence waned after his death.

26. Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness, 202. 27 Ibid., 30.

28. For a similar criticism, see Nikolaos Loudovikos, "Person Instead of Grace and Dictated Otherness; John Zizioulas' Final llieological Position," Heythrop Jour-naliS (2009): 1-16.

29. Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness, 202. 30. Lossky, Tlje Mystical Theology, 94.

The Theological-Ethical Contributions of Archimandrite Sophrony

(Sakharov) to Environmental Issues / Perry T. Hamalis 1. Produced and published jointly by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Wodd

Wide fund for Nature International (WWF), 1990. 2. See, for example, Kallistos Ware, "'We Must Pray for All'; Salvation Accord­

ing to St. Silouan," Sobomost 19, no. 1 (1997): 51—53. See also Met. John Zizioulas, "Tlie 'Hieology of St. Silouan the Athonite," [in Greek] in Saint Silouan of the Oi-kumene (New Smyrna; Akritas, 2001), 37; and Jean-Claude Larchet, Saint Siloimne de I'Athos (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 2001).

3. The reference is to the Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist in Essex, England, which Fr. Sophrony founded in 1959 and at which he served as spiritual father until his repose on July 11, 1993.

4. See Fr. Sophrony, We Shall See Him as He Is, trans. Rosemary Edmonds (Essex; Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist, 1988), 10-11, 64.

5. Ibid., 37 195,211.

6. The book Staretz Silouan came out first as a mimeographed edition in 1948 and then was published professionally in 1952. It has since been translated into more than twenty languages. See Nicholas Sakharov, 1 Love Tljerefore I Am (Crest­wood, N.Y.; St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2002), 31. Fr. Nicholai's work remains dhe authoritative account of Fr. Sophrony's biography as well as of the historical in­fluences upon Fr. Sophrony's theology.

7. Several dissertations have been completed and monographs published during I he past decade on Fr. Sophrony's rhought, including two by members of the com­munity at Essex. The French journal Buisson Ardent, which is dedicated to the study

428 N O T E S TO PAGES 1 2 3 - 2 5

of St. Silouan and Fr. Sophrony, was launched in 1995 and maintains annual

publication.

8. Fr. Sophrony, Saint Silouan the Athonite, trans. Rosemary Edmonds (Essex:

Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist, 1991), 229. 9. Ibid., 119. 10. Ibid., 229. 11. Fr. Sophrony makes this point in We Shall See Him as He Is, "Thanks to [Sib

ouan], year after year I was able to observe at close quarters a truly Christian life, and even become a disciple. I am incomparably more indebted to his prayers than to all my other preceprors, though among them were several outstanding representa­tives of our Church—grace-endowed ascetics in monasteries and hermitages, bish­ops and priests; likewise professors in theological schools" (208). Fr. Nicholas Sakharov has provided an aiuhoritative account of the influence of other thinkers upon Fr. Sophrony's thought. See Sakharov, I Love Therefore I Am.

12. Fr. Sophrony, Saint Silouan the Athonite, 94. 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid., 469. 15. Ibid. 16. See Fr. Sophrony's description of a similar type of weeping in ibid., 151. I will

return to this point below in my discussion of hypostatic prayer and the "royal priesthood."

17. Ibid., 95. 18. Ibid., 470. 19. Ibid., 95. 20. For example, St. Silouan writes, "people who attach themselves to animals . . .

have forsaken the love of God, and because of this that love between brothers Ibl which Christ died in great suffering gets lost" (ibid., 470).

21. Fr. Sophrony summarizes the point as follows, "[Staretz Silouan] would say thai allithings wete created to serve man, and so, when necessary, everything could be made use of but, at the same time, man was obliged to'care for all creation, llierefore harm done unnecessarily to an animal—to plant life, even—gainsays the law of grace. Biil attachment to animals likewise goes against the Divine commandment, since it dimiii ishes love for God and one's neighbour" (ibid., 96). O n the divine commandmenrs as divine energy, see Fr. Sophrony, We Shall See Him as He Is, 149-150, 210, 229.

22. See examples in Fr. Sophrony, We Shall See Him as He Is, 198, 216; Fr. Soph rony. Saint Silouan the Athonite, 47; Fr. Sophrony, On Prayer, trans. Rosemary Hd monds (Essex: Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist, 1996, 132); \h. Sophrony, La felicite de connaitre la vote, trans. Hiermonk Symeon (Geneva: Lahnr et Fides, 1988), 21, 49-50; Fr. Sophrony Words of Life, trans. Sister Magdalen (I',-, sex: Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist, 1998), 21.

23. Ft. Sophrony, His Life Is Mine, trans. Rosemary Edmonds (Cresrwood, N.Y.: Si. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1977), 88. C f Fr. Sophrony, La felicite de connaitre la von; 49—50. It should be noted, as well, that in the tefectory at the monastery of St. John llir

N O T E S TO PAGES 1 2 5 - 3 0 429

Baptist, Fr. Sophrony had a mural icon of the "Hospirality of Abraham" painted to which he added the inscription, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

24. See Fr. Sophrony, On Prayer, 111, 150; Fr. Sophrony Words of Life, 21, 29. 25. Fr. Sophrony, Words of Life, 21.

26. Fr. Sophrony, Saint Silouan the Athonite, 47. There is also a similar teaching from St. Antony in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, "Our life and our death is with our neighbor" (no. 9).

27. Fr. Sophrony, His Life Is Mine, 77.

28. As he puts it, "Man's personality is indestructible in eternity. T A M ; 1 am . . . the truth, and the life.' T am the light of the world.' Being, Truth, Light are not abstract concepts, impersonal substances—not ' W H A T ' but 'WHO'. Where there is no personal form of being, there is nothing alive either, just as there is neither good nor evil there; neither light nor darkness." Fr. Sophrony, On Prayer, 164-165.

29. Fr. Sophrony, Saint Silouan the Athonite, 157. 30. Fr. Sophrony, His Life Is Mine, 92. 31. Fr. Sophrony On Prayer, 18-19.

32. See Saint Silouan the Athonite, 31, 101. Fr. Sophrony's teaching on the fallen (ondition's ongoing worsening has patristic roots in St. Athanasius, St. Maximus the Confessor, and others. To the best of my knowledge, this theological claim's connection to environmental destruction has not yet been sufficiently explored.

33. Fr. Sophrony, "Trois lettres a Maria," Buisson Ardent'5 (1999): 15. 34. Fr. Sophrony, We Shall See Him as He Is, 52. For related passages on asceti­

cism, c f Fr. Sophrony, La felicite de connaitre la voie, 60; Fr. Sophrony, On Prayer, .12; Fr. Sophrony, Words of Life, 34.

35. Fr. Sophrony We Shall See Him as He Is, 115. 36. For excellent discussions of this theme in Fr. Sqphrony's writings see Nicho-

l.is Sakharov, I Love Therefore I Am, esp. 105-115. See also Archimandrite Zacharias (/.acharou), Christy Our Way and Our Life, trans. Sr. Magdalen (South Canaan, I'enn.: St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 2003), 233-256; 'The Enlargement of the Heart: "He Ye Also Enlarged" (2 Cor 6:13) in the Theology of Saint Silouan the Athonite and llder Sophrony of Essex, ed. C . Veniamin (South Canaan, Penn.: Mount Thabor I'ttblishing, 2006), 114-127, 144-145; and The Hidden Man of the Heart (1 Pet 3:4): Ihe Cultivation of the Heart in Orthodox Christian Anthropology, ed. C . Veniamin (Sourh Canaan, Penn.: Mount Thabor Publishing, 2008), 69-90.

37 See Fr. Sophrony, His Life Is Mine, 68; Fr. Sophrony, Saint Silouan the • Wthonite, 34.

38. See Archimandrite Sophrony, "L'obeissance, c'est la voie tracee par le Christ," liiiisson Ardent? (2001): 9.

39. Fr. Sophrony, His Life is Mine, 110. • 40. Ibid., 10. See also the Greek version of We Shalt See Him as He Is, 351-380, which includes important sections on "Liturgical Prayer" that are not present in the I'liglish.

41. See Fr. Sophrony, Saint Silouan the Athonite, 116.