Sophia and sobornost′: cement and organizing principle of Orthodox society
Sophia and sobornost?: cement and organizing principle of Orthodox society
Introduction
Secular sociology and religious sophiology both developed in the slipstream of the rise of the social question in the 19th century. This paper compares the basic features of these two alternative rationalizations of the social in the cases of Max Weber, one of the founding fathers of modern secular sociology, and of Sergei Bulgakov who continued Vladimir Solov’?v?s social philosophy and sophiology.[503] The first paragraph demonstrates that both sociology and sophiology were reflections on ?modernity? or on life in the modern world and addressed similar questions.[504] Sociology, however, only gave a description of the factual state of society, whereas sophiology intended to give a picture of the good state of society as well.
The second paragraph explores the meaning of Sophia, the Wisdom of God (Premudrost? Bozhiia), in the sophiologies of Solov’?v and Bulgakov. Solov’?v?s interpretation of love in Smysl? liubvi,[505] is contrasted to the alternative Orthodox view of Lev Tolstoi.[506] This part analyzes Solov’?v?s interpretation of the love that is and ought to be the cement of Christian society and will demonstrate that sobornost? [507]for Solov’?v is the main characteristic of the type of organization of this Christian society as Orthodox Church community. Tolstoi?s contrasting view and ethics, according to Max Weber, was typical of Christianity as a salvation religion with its attitude of world denial. Weber identified the Christian ethic proceeding from this acosmic standpoint with the Ideal type of the ethic of brotherliness.[508]
The third paragraph addresses the tasks of Bulgakov?s sophiology, Bulgakov developed Solov’?v?s sophiology as a Christian sociology, in continuous reference to the contemporary secular sociology in Germany, and in particular with the sociology of Max Weber. Sophiology, according to Bulgakov, is not secular, but Christian sociology and it is an essential part of bogoslovle or theology. In the concluding part, the agreement or disagreement of the contemporary official social conception of the Russian Orthodox Church[509] with both Tolstoi?s social teaching and the sophiological views of Solov’?v and Bulgakov is evaluated. The Osnovy do not mention Sophia or the names of the Russian sophiologists[510] and in some respects seem to side more with Tolstoi?s conception of the Christian attitude to the world as world denial, but in other and more important respects seem to express positions compatible with sophiology
1. The social question and the rise of sociology and sophiology
?
The social question was raised because of the increase of human need and suffering in the lowest social classes, but it enhanced also the recognition of the differentiation of polity or state and society or b rgerllche Gesellschaft (civic or civil society).[511] The social question in fact was already the articulation of a relatively autonomous or self-conscious social sphere that could oppose itself to the state sphere,
A similar differentiation at the same time is apparent in the development of political economy from Staatswissenschaft, the science of – and on behalf of – the state, into Soziologie as an autonomous social science, This development took place during the lifetime of Max Weber, who was a champion for the theoretical independence of sociology from political science. Weber developed the concept of Wertfreiheit in science – or the freedom from other than scientific values in science – to ascertain this independence. This was not only Wertfreiheit of science from politics, but also from the dominance of rules, methods and ends of other life spheres, e.g. of religion, law, art and education, in the sphere of science. The Wertfreiheit of sociology according to Weber guaranteed the objectivity of the results of sociological research.[512] In fact, the Wertfreiheit of science is a logical consequence of Weber?s conception of history as an increasing rationalization of and differentiation into various life spheres that have their own Eigengesetzlichkeit or autonomy
The social question not only provoked the recognition of the factual differentiation of political and civil society, and the analogous differentiation of political and social science, but it also produced new articulations of the ?good life?. Since Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the good life had been the central question of political philosophy, as it was the most important task of the polity as the Greek polis. In Aristotle?s analysis of the telos (end) of various political organizations, from oikos (or house community) to village to polis (city-state), the last and biggest entity had the task to provide for the good life of the population of the polis. The actions of the state or polis only had legitimacy because of its telos to provide for the good life.[513]
In traditional societies, religion answered the question of the good life, Weber demonstrated in his Zwischenbetrachtung the possible tensions between the political and the religious life spheres, that proceed from the fact that both are essentially engaged in ?giving meaning?.[514] In the 19th century, politicians and autocratic rulers of the nation-states had secured the exclusive right to answer the question of the good life for its population and territory, and to install the rules and use the force necessary to direct society to this end. It was exactly this exclusive right of the polity to determine the telos of society that raising the social question challenged.
Because of his scientific principle of the autonomy or Eigengesetzlichkeit of every life sphere, Max Weber did not challenge the political sphere in his sociology He restricted sociology to the description of ?the social? in terms of social actions and associations, and consciously kept all normative questions about the good society or the good social actions or associations out of sociology. Sociology should not prescribe any ideal of the good life of society, as it would transgress its competence in doing so. Science cannot decide between good and evil.[515] Apart from this, according to Weber, social actions do not always have the intended result: sociology cannot predict the future, but can only describe ideal-typical rational possibilities.
Sophiology did not recognize these self-imposed limitations of Weber?s sociology Not only the ?is,? but also the ?ought? belonged to its sphere.[516] In other words, not only the description of the actual state of society as it is – in the fallen state of humankind and society – is the task of sophiology, but also the description of society as it ought to be – as the Kingdom of God on earth. One important task of sophiology is the interpretation of the world from the telos of society – or from the intentions of God for humanity in material history
2. The cement and organization of society
For all possible – political, societal or religious – perspectives on the ?good life?, one dominant problem was the problem of cohesion. What was the cement of polity or society, or what was the ultimate motive for any social group action? What was the force that kept the state undivided, or that was lying at the basis of society as a whole, or of every individual social organization? The perspective that formulated it colored the answers to this question: liberals answered with the notions of self-interest and positive law; Christians of all denominations with the notions of Divine love and Divine law, and communists would point to the natural law of solidarity within an economic class or social group.
Weber differentiated even the cement of society: social actions of individuals can be coordinated into group action from different motivations.
Individuals are motivated either out of sentiment or emotion, habit or tradition, convictions and beliefs, or rational calculation of interests. The latter two categories Weber considered rational and named goal-rational and value-rational motivations. The first two categories of habit and emotion according to Weber are irrational and more or less unconscious. Emotions and habit are not capable of building society, but only community.[517] According to Weber, in modern society the dominant types of social group action are value-rational or goal-rational actions that give rise to societyformation, not to community-formation.
Vladimir Solov’?v and Sergei Bulgakov developed an Orthodox Christian social philosophy, or a Christian sociology that they named sophiology or the study of Sophia, the Wisdom of God. In essence, they opposed the rationalistic and individualistic or abstract view on society as an association of self-interest, or of self-chosen values, that Weber?s sociology developed. They also opposed the Christian duty of love for God and neighbor – or carltas/agap – that Lev Tolstoi developed, and that Weber used as an Ideal type to describe the essence of the Christian attitude to life. Finally, they opposed Weber?s acknowledgement that science cannot decide between good and evil with the notion of Divine wisdom (or Sophia) that can provide this knowledge to humankind.
2. a. Love-of-other or love-of-self as the essence of Christian social love: Solov’?v versus Tolstoi
In Smysl? llubvl, his famous philosophical-theological treatise on the meaning and essence of love, Solov’?v reacted to the conception of love as duty, that he saw expressed in Lev Tolstoi?s Krecerova Sonata (1889) and Posleslovle k Krecerovol Sonate (1890).[518] In Smysl? llubvl, Solov’?v departed from the meaning of human sexual love or polovala llubov?, whereas Tolstoi was primarily concerned with the sinfulness of carnal love or plotskalallubov?. Solov’?v?s essay started with the meaning of human love for biological and historical humanity, and in the end found its meaning in Divine-humanity or Bogochelovechestvo. Its smysl? – that has the double sense of ?meaning? and essential ?nature? that reveals itself – is Sophla, the Wisdom of God. Solov’?v did not mention Sophla in this essay, but referred to her as vechnala Zhenstvennost? – the eternal Feminine – that he compared to Plato?s heavenly and earthly Aphrodite (SL, chapter 4.VII, p. 63).
Sophia, or the eternal Feminine, makes all human forms of love – including human polovala llubov? or erotic love – meaningful. According to Solov? ёч human erotic love is the highest bloom of human individuality. (SL, 2.I, p. 28) The meaning of human love is the justification and salvation of human individuality or personhood through the sacrifice of egoism (SL, 2.III, p. 32), or the transcendence of the self. Erotic love is the means to transcend the self and to become a more complete individual that can take part in the transcendent All-unity without losing its particularity. The individual cannot reach salvation individually, but only together with others in sobornost?, Tolstoi?s vision of salvation was a mystical union of the individual with an absolute God. In order to reach this salvation, the individual Christian had to live a worldly life of abstention, of rigid asceticism in every respect, of vegetarianism, of celibacy (even in marriage), of extreme pacifism, and of disciplined and preferably agrarian daily work. The individual Christian should not love himself and serve only himself, which is the essence of egoism, but should ?love God and neighbor? that is the core of Christian altruism and self-sacrifice, according to Tolstoi. The ecclesiastical structure of the Church was not necessary to reach this salvation, nor so-called Christian marriage. Tolstoi?s explicit rejection of the sacrament of marriage in his Kreutzersonata shocked Russian and European society most.[519]
Tolstoi?s Christian love according to Solov? ёv however is not anti-egoist, but ultimately egoist, as it is only interested in the salvation of the individual self, Tolstoi?s ascetic egoism – that reveals itself as anti-naturalist negation of every instinctive and bodily human need or pleasure – according to Solov’?v is self-hatred and self-destruction that can have no place in true love. (SL, p. 34) Tolstoi?s salvation consisted in the loss of human individuality that is absorbed into the Divine Absolute. According to Solov’?v, Tolstoi?s way to salvation was a continuous violence to human nature that contradicted God?s nature as love. For Solov’?v the erotic love between a man and a woman is the fulfillment of their human nature. Only after the transcendence of the one-sidedness of human nature – or of the necessity of being engendered – humankind is ready to unite with God and be part of All-unity.
This salvation or union with God and All-Unity does not disturb the essential distinction between God and humankind, just as the union of a male and a female does not disturb the individuality and particularity of each. Love does not destroy the individuality or better the person-hood of the human individual, but it makes the human surpass him or herself. Solov’?v?s teaching on salvation through love is a staged climb toward the perfection of human spiritual, moral and physical nature into Bogochelovechestvo (or the true communio of humankind and God in Divine Humanity) through the Grace of God,
Max Weber made the Tolstoian vision of Orthodox love as a mystical and brotherly love into the Ideal type of the Christian ethic of brotherliness,
This ethic resembles the world denying Puritan Christian ethic that has the same distracted brotherly love as an ascetic task and inner-worldly daily praxis at its center. This brotherly Christian ethic according to Weber finds its source in a denial of the world that is characteristic for salvation religions, that is a-cosmic and intrinsically a-social.[520] Tolstoi?s extremely world-denying individual ascetic praxis negated the value of everything inner-worldly. Tolstoi?s extremely negative evaluation and rejection of the inner-worldly realm differs from Puritanism with its more diverse valuation of this world, and from Orthodoxy that usually recognizes the sinfulness of the world, but did not impose any abstention from or hate for the world that God created.
2. b. Bulgakov?s sophiology as a continuation of Solov’?v?s project – with some important adaptations
Sergei Bulgakov largely followed Solov’?v in his critical treatment of Tolstoi?s concept of Christian love as duty and considered it as too individualistic, abstract and one-sided. Like Solov’?v, Bulgakov never preached abstention from erotic love, nor celibacy between husband and wife. Bulgakov however never gave human love as eros the central position it had in Solov’?v?s concept of salvation and All-Unity. For Bulgakov, not human eros or erotic love, but Divine love is central. Divine love – or Sophia
– is primordial and makes human love and life possible and meaningful. Although salvation can only be given by the Grace of God, humankind is not supposed to wait for it passively. Human work is essential for the salvation of humanity and the world.[521]
If the human individual is incomplete or imperfect, according to Bulgakov this is a result of the primordial sin. The erotic union of a male and a female does not restore human nature to its condition before the fall. Humanity does not become perfect or complete through eros or polovaia love. According to Bulgakov, only the daily work of every human individual in podvizhnichestvo[522] can make humanity complete as Divine-humanity in sobornost?.
Bulgakov replaced Solov’?v?s concept of love as the intermediary between humanity and God with the concept of work. Bulgakov interpreted work in its broadest sense as consumption and production, and essentially as the transformation of nature into culture, or the humanization of nature.[523] Whereas for Solov?ev sobornost? signified the ideal organization of the Orthodox Church community, for Bulgakov sobornost? more and more became the characteristic of Orthodox social organization. It is the direct telos of Orthodox podvizhnichestvo which expresses itself as a daily methodic work – an ascetic praxis that is a calling (poslushanie) and a service to God for every Orthodox believer. Bulgakov?s concept of work as podvizhnichestvo is consciously close to the Puritan innerweltliche Askese that Weber recognized in the ?spirit of Capitalism?, which had a definite – although unintended – economical or inner-worldly result.[524]
Throughout his personal intellectual development from religious philosopher to Orthodox theologian, Bulgakov kept using Sophia as icon of the presence or energies of the Christian Trinitarian God in the world.[525] Bulgakov developed his sophiology in Philosophy of Economy (1912) first as Christian sociology, or as a study of the presence of God?s love or Sophia in the every day world. In Svet Nevechernii (1917) Bulgakov developed sophiology in a philosophical way, as to its gnoseology, ontology and historiosophy.[526] Sophiology, however, is also an integral part of Orthodox theology or of bogoslovie. Bulgakov developed sophiology as theology in his two theological trilogies.[527]
Not sexual intercourse between humans as a kind of inter-communion of tvarnost? (created-ness), but divine embodiment of tvar?, or the communion of created-ness and uncreated-ness in Godmanhood, was Bulgakov?s central point of attention in these writings. The ultimate icons of this communion are the divine Incarnation in the God-man, Christ, and at Pentecost in the Christian Church, as embodied by the twelve apostles of Christ. These are icons of Godmanhood. Sobornost? for Bulgakov is the quality of this Divine-human unity in the Church that is the body of Christ on earth. If the double task of the ?humanization of nature? and the ?churchification of society? is accomplished through Christian work as podvlzhnlchestvo, sobornost? would become the characteristic of the organization of Orthodox society.[528]
3. The tasks of Bulgakov’s sophiology
Russian Orthodox Church hierarchy never officially accepted sophiology as its official social teaching. In 1928, the Russian Orthodox Church of the Karlovtsy jurisdiction accused Bulgakov of heresy because of his sophiology In 1937, the Church court of the Moscow Patriarchate exonerated his case.[529] But even in his own circle of the St. Serge Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, of which Bulgakov was co-founder and dean, the Spor o Sofll or dispute on Sophia clearly showed the resistance against sophiology Despite his efforts, Bulgakov did not succeed to remove Sophia from her Gnostic roots, or to associate her closer to the Orthodox patristic tradition. The suspicion of Sophia being the fourth and female hypostasis of God remained predominant in lay and official Orthodox circles.
For Bulgakov, Sophia is the unique object of sophiology as Christian sociology, philosophy and theology. As the nature of God, Sophia is the nature of the relation of God to the world that expresses itself as Divine love for his creation. At the same time, Sophia is Jacob?s ladder for humanity – or the possibility of a relation with God, and of cataphatlc or positive theology The nature of God and its relation to the world is manifest to humankind as divine Wisdom, Love, Providence, Beauty, Glory and Grace, to enumerate some of the positive qualifications that are characteristic of this Divine-human relation for Bulgakov.
Sophiology as positive theology is in fact the opposite of the traditional apophatlc or negative theology in Orthodox tradition that concentrated on bogoslavle (the glorification of God) and bogosluzhenle (the liturgical service). In his trilogies, Bulgakov wanted to develop or disclose the dogma of the Trinity that was established at the Council of Chalcedon to adapt it to the modern world, and turned to dogmatic theology One could say that Bulgakov changed – slovle or – slavle into – logy, and in this change seemed to elevate philosophy and science above the glorification of God in liturgical service.
Furthermore, Bulgakov?s sophiology kept consciously close to secular sociology of the Weberian kind. Bulgakov classified secular sociology as the ?phenomenology of economy?[530] with economy being one of the expressions of the relation between God and the world. Sophiology, in contradistinction to sociology however, had to be capable to discern between good and evil, true or false appearances of God in the world, or between the active presence of God or of Antichrist in the world.[531] Sophiology is therefore Christian sociology and is not only a phenomenology of the ?is,? but also has to give an account of the ?ought.? Sophiology is not only sociology, but also social ethics and social theology.[532]
The unorthodoxy of the icon of Sophia remained an obstacle however for the reception of sophiology in official Russian Orthodoxy. For Bulgakov, Sophia was not a hypostasis of God, but an icon of his nature for humanity, and an instrument of hermeneutics for the interpretation of God?s presence in the modern world.[533] Sophia is not only instrumental for human reason as object of human contemplation – the vision of God (theo-reia), but also instrumental for human practical reason that tries to build a better world. Sophia is the key for understanding the relation of humanity to God and of God to humanity, because her world-immanent being reflects her world-transcendent being.
Sophia, on the other hand, is never only an instrument of hermeneutics, or of social ethics, but she is also an active and divine principle. Humanity not only strives up to God, God also comes down to elevate humanity. From an exclusively immanent, e.g. a secular sociological standpoint such as Max Weber?s, it is impossible to decide about true and false phenomena of God?s presence in the world, or to choose between Christ and Anti-Christ. This problem puts us right in the middle of Solov’?v?s last work Tri razgovora[534] that concluded it is impossible to decide on the question of just wars and the nature of evil from an immanent or exclusively inner-worldly standpoint.
According to Tri razgovora only true belief makes it possible to discern between Christ and Antichrist. The ability to discriminate between good and evil in the world that is given in Sophia is of the utmost importance for sophiology as the study of the progress of Christian humanity in its double task to relate the world to God in a humanization of nature, and to relate humanity to God in a deification through the Church that is Divine humanity or Sophia in actu.[535]
4. The Osnovy and sophiology
The Osnovy (foundations or principles) of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church are in the plural. This seems to imply the Osnovy depart from various principles and not from the one principle of Sophia
– The Wisdom of God. Chapter I on the basic theological provisions of the Osnovy starts with giving several definitions of the Church. The unifying principle of the Osnovy, therefore, seems to be the Church itself that is at once the universal Church, and the historical Russian Orthodox Church as an expression of the universal Church in this world. The Osnovy depart from the position of the Russian Orthodox Church and its mission in the world and try to determine its inner-worldly relations.
The Church is the assembly of believers in Christ (par 1.1), but also a divine-human organism (1.2, bogochelovecheskll organlzm) and the Body of Christ in this world. The Church is a ?unity of the new humanity? in Christ. The Osnovy here quote Slavophile Orthodox philosopher A.S. Khomiakov who used the term sobornala cerkov? in the sense of ?conciliar church?. According to the Osnovy, the Church shares Christ?s mission to save the world, but can only do this through sobornoe sluzhenle or conciliar service
(1.2). In the official document Baslc Teachlng of Russlan Orthodox Church on Human Dlgnlty, Freedom and Rlghts (2008), the substantive sobornost? is used to denote the Orthodox tradition that ?wants to keep the unity of the society on the basis of the eternal ethical values.? Here the ROC seems to subscribe to the interpretation of sobornost? as the principle of cohesion and organization of Orthodox society.
The Osnovy also use the formula ?continuous service (sluzhenle) to God and neighbor? to describe the life in the Church of every Christian. This formula at first sight seems close to Tolstoi?s ?love of God and neighbor?. In contradistinction with Tolstoi, the sluzhenle of the Osnovy is not individual, but conciliar action. This continuous conciliar service of God and neighbor is closer to Bulgakov?s concept of podvlzhnlchestvo than to Tolstoi?s asceticism. Furthermore, like Bulgakov, the Osnovy explicitly do not admit ?to shun the surrounding world in a Manichean way,? as Tolstoi preached.[536] The Church on the contrary calls all Christians to participate in the world. This participation in the world ?should be based on the awareness that the world, socium and state are objects of God?s love.?
(1.3) Here without naming Sophia, the Osnovy seem to take an inner-worldly position that concentrates on the love of God for the world. The Osnovy also stress the particularity and plurality of gifts in the relation of the Church to society, as well as the fact that everyone (clergy, monk or lay) can realize this participation in different ways and degrees. This seems to correspond as well to the sophiological ideal of sobornost? of the organization of Church community where everybody can bring and do his or her own service or work for the well-being of the community.[537]
In Chapter VI of the Osnovy, work is presented as an organic element of human life. Work already existed in the Garden of Eden, before the fall, There, work was co-creation and co-operation with God by virtue of the original likeness of humanity to God. After the fall, work became ?labor in the sweat?. Daily work is necessary, according to the Osnovy, but it does not represent an absolute value as it does not contribute to the salvation of humanity. (VI.4). For Bulgakov, as we have seen, the role of work is essential, but not sufficient for the salvation of humanity,
The social involvement of the Russian Orthodox Church is related to its mission of the salvation of Christian humanity and of the world. This certainly is a sophiological theme: salvation is not individual but conciliar and does not only concern humanity, but the world as well. The Church should not only preach, but also do ?good works aimed to improve the spiritual and material condition of the world around her.? (I.4) The Osnovy here come close to the notions of humanization of nature and churchification of society that Bulgakov?s sophiology defined as the telos of human work as service to God,
Conclusion
Sophiology, Tolstoi and the Russian Orthodox Church present various structural conceptualizations or Weberian Ideal types of the Orthodox attitude to the world and to life in the world. The central aspects of these alternative Orthodox conceptualizations of the world are God?s love for the world and his demand of the love of every Christian for God and neighbor, The various orthodox social teachings differed in their interpretation of the love that should be central in humankind?s relation to God, each other and the world.
Tolstoi chose the side of Christian individualism and combined ascetic individual praxis with a determined abstention and rejection of the world and of everything worldly. Sophiology on the other hand, took a conscious inner-worldly position, with a clear ideal of the salvation of humanity, and the necessary sobornoe deianie to prepare this salvation as Divine-humanity Solov v and Bulgakov developed sobornost? from a exclusively and narrowly ecclesiological characteristic of life in the Orthodox Church, into the ideal quality of organization of Orthodox Church community and eventually of Orthodox society. Bulgakov determined podvizhnichestvo as the central characteristic of Orthodox active participation in the world.
The Russian Orthodox Church seems to side more with sophiology than with Tolstoi on these points. Despite its basic positive evaluation of the world, however, the further text of the Osnovy seems to limit this considerably: the love for the world does not concern this world in its fallen state and the Church itself is not of this world. This feeling tends to get the upper hand in the other chapters of the Osnovy, where the church seems more concerned to demarcate its specific relation with the Russian State and with Russian secular society. The Russian Orthodox Church in the Osnovy did not venture to engage in an inner search for and outer articulation of its unifying principle of love as the true basis of Christian inner-worldly involvement. In this respect sophiology seems more in line with the recently published Roman-Catholic social doctrine that speaks of a ?civilization of love? as the implicit telos of the document and of Christian social action.[538]