Florovsky on Sophia

The following is an excerpt from the article  "ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑ vs ΣΟΦΙΑ The contribution of Fr. Georges Florovsky to the rediscovery of the Orthodox teaching on the distinction between the Divine essence and energies" by Stoyan Tanev 

[...]

Interestingly enough, Florovsky rarely talks about Sophia. “It is particularly startling to discover that there seems to be absolutely nothing” in Florovsky’s lifetime corpus of published writing that could qualify as an explicit attack on sophiology.147 However, Florovsky’s writings abound in what can be characterised as indirect criticism of sophiology. Most of them were scholarly studies which aimed “to expose weaknesses in the theoretical or historical underpinnings of the sophiological edifice, doing so, however, without referring to the sophiological teaching by name.”148 One of the few places where Florovsky discusses the concept of Sophia is in a letter written to Bulgakov on July 4/22, 1926, where he argues that acquaintance with Palamas would have made his Sophia unnecessary: 149

“As I have been saying for a long time, there are two teachings about Sophia and even two Sophias, or more accurately, two images of Sophia: the true and real and the imaginary one. Holy churches were built in Byzantium and in Rus’ in the name of the former. The latter inspired Solovyov and his Masonic and western teachers - and goes right back to the Gnostics and Philo. Solovyov did not at all know the Church Sophia: he knew Sophia from Boehme and the Behmenists, from Valentinus and Kabbalah. And this Sophiology is heretical and renounced. That which you find in Athanasius relates to the other Sophia. And one may find even more about Her in Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, from which there is a direct line to Palamas. The very terminology - ousia and energeia has its beginning in Basil the Great. I see no difficulty in this terminology. Aristotle has nothing to do with this. The basic thought of Cappadocian theology can be reduced to a precise distinction of the inner-divine Pleroma, of the Triune fullness of all-sufficient life, and it is this that is the ousia, pelagas, tis ousias in Damascene, – and: the ‘outward’ [vo vne] direction of Mercy, Grace, Love, Activity - Energeia. The entire question (speculatively very difficult) is in this distinction. In the perceptible sense, this is the explanation of the very idea of creation, as a Divine plan-will about the other, about not-God. Ousia – according to Basil the Great and according to Palamas - is unreachable and unknowable, it is ‘in light unapproachable.’ But ‘the very same God’ (Palamas’ expression) creates, that is, offers another, and for that reason is revealed ‘outward’ [vo vne]. It is this that is ‘Energy,’ ‘Glory,’ ‘Sophia’ - a non-hypostatic revelation of “the same” God. Not ‘essence,’ not ‘personhood,’ not ‘hypostasis.’ If you like, yes, - Divine accidentia, but accidentia of ‘the very same’ God or God ‘Himself.’ And it is precisely to this that Palamas’ thought leads - the accent is on the fullness and full meaning tis Theotitos. If you like, Sophia is Deus revelatus, that is, Grace. Grace - this is God to the world, pros ton kosmon (and not pros ton Theon, as in John 1:1 about the Logos). Sophia is eternal, inasmuch as it is thought - the will of the Eternal God, but it is willed - a thought about Time. There is much on this theme in Blessed Augustine. Sophia - is not only thought, ‘idea,’ kosmos noitos, but is will, power… And in God there is not, God does not have non-eternal powers and wills, but there is will about time. Sophia never is world. The world is other, both in relation to grace and in relation to the ‘original image.’ Therefore ‘pre-eternity’ and ‘pre-temporality’ of will - thoughts about time does [sic] not convert time into eternity. ‘Ideal creation,’ ‘pre-eternal council,’ toto genere is different from real creative fiat. Sophia is not the ‘soul of the world.’ This negative statement distinguishes the Church teaching about Sophia from the Gnostic and Behmenist teachings about her. Sophia is not a created subject, it is not a substance or substrata of created coming-into-being [stanovleniia]. This is gratia and not natura. And natura = creatura. Sophia - is not creatura. Along with this, it is not hypostasis, but thrice-radiant glory.”

This letter is most representative for the identification of some of the key characteristics of Florovsky’s theological approach: the rejection of Solovyov’s legacy in Russian religious philosophy; the firm foundation of his theology in Patristics starting with the theological contribution of St Athanasius the Great; the clear distinction between Divine nature and will as well as the location of the solution of the sophiogical problematics in the Palamite distinction between Divine essence and energies; and last but not least, the relevance of the doctrine of creation for Christian theology in general. Florovsky will further develop his ideas in a number of future works.150

147 Alexis Klimoff, “Georges Florovsky and the Sophiological controversy,” p. 75. 

148 Ibid., p. 76. 

149 The letter has been published in Russian: А.М. Пентковски, “Письма Г.Флоровского С.Булгакову и С.Тышкевичу,” Символ - Журнал христианской культуры при Славянской библиотеке в Париже, № 29, 1993, с. 205, and recently translated in English. The English version can be found online at: http://ishmaelite.blogspot.com/2009/05/palamas-florovsky-bulgakov-and.html (15.08.2010).

150 Georges Florovsky, “Creation and Creaturehood,” Chapter III of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Vol. III: Creation and Redemption (Belmont, Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Company, 1976), pp. 43-78; “The Concept of Creation in Saint Athanasius,” Studia Patristica, Vol. VI, Papers presented at the Third Conference on Patristic Studies, held at Christ Church, Oxford, September, 1959 (Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1962), pp. 36-57; “The Idea of Creation in Christian Philosophy,” Eastern Churches Quarterly, Vol. 8, 1949, Supplementary issue on Nature and Grace; “St Gregory Palamas and the tradition of the Fathers,” Sobornost, Vol. 4, 1961, pp. 165- 176, and also in The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Vol. 1, pp. 105-120.