The Theology of Sergius Bulgakov by Robert F. Slesinski

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Theology of Sergius Bulgakov by Robert F. Slesinski Harry Moore Robert F. Slesinski. The Theology of Sergius Bulgakov. (New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2017. 280 pp. The past twenty years have witnessed a remarkable surge of interest in the theology of Fr. Sergei Bulgakov. Robert F. Slesinski's The Theology of Sergius Bulgakov is thus a timely addition to this particular inter-denominational renaissance. Slesinski has not only demonstrated an unmatched understanding of Orthodoxy's most eclectic and highly speculative theologian, but has brought a wealth of critique to the fore. Having already established himself as a specialist in Russian religious thought with his doctoral thesis on Pavel Florensky, Slesinski now turns to Florensky's more systematic yet controversial contemporary, delving deep into his elaborate and often perplexing theological reflections. After a short biographical outline of Bulgakov's development as a theologian, chapters 2 and 3 deal with his thoughts on Divine Wisdom and their key points of contention. Slesinski first outlines the historical development of Sophiology with reference to Florensky and Vladimir Solov'ev, before presenting Bulgakov's own original conception of Sophia as "a principle that engenders the transformation of society from within" (47). Sophia's multi-faceted existence is accurately distilled in these chapters; this includes Sophia as Divine–Human mediator, as natural beauty, as human creativity, as the "world-soul," and as the "proto-image of all creation" (53), with the latter idea receiving more detailed examination in chapter 10, "A Sophiological Conception of Creation." Some of the more traditional weaknesses in Bulgakov's thought are also discussed here, such as its determinism and impersonalism, along with the well-known accusation that Sophia is simply a "fourth hypostasis" (50). Specific attention is paid in the opening chapters to the notion of Sophia as an organic teleological principle in contrast to a mechanical, causal principle, one that Slesinski ascribes to Cartesian philosophy. Most importantly however, Slesinski launches a sustained attack on Bulgakov's "especially impoverished" view of causality (150). Contra Bulgakov, he maintains that the category of causality is not simply mechanical, but is in fact a "primary datum of experience," and eventually equates the sophianic creative act to a scholastic causa exemplaris (56). However, the decisive theoretical grounding for Bulgakov's rejection of causality, as established by Vladimir Solov'ev in his influential philosophical writings, is unfortunately not included in the debate. The following four chapters (4–8) examine Bulgakov's "Little Trilogy." The discussion here reveals the theologian's striking originality in the areas of Angelology, Mariology, and the study of John the Forerunner. In a similar vein to earlier treatments of these more devotional texts, the analysis is dominated by Catholic–Orthodox polemic. Slesinski's arguments here tend to focus on areas of confessional dispute such as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (85–104) and the veneration of Saint Joseph (80–84). On the whole, Slesinski is convinced that Bulgakov has deeply misunderstood Catholic teachings, specifically the work of Thomas Aquinas. He claims that the Russian theologian postulates a "gross caricature of Catholic theology" (126). However, the author does not dwell on this caricature and instead attempts a "catholicization" of Bulgakov, not only by drawing specific attention to his early "flirtations with Catholicism" (31), but by asserting that his theology actually aligns with areas of Aquinas' Summa Theologica, more specifically concerning the Creator as the principle of the world's being, and the Holy Spirit as the "bridge of Love" (200). Most interestingly, Slesinski rethinks the Immaculate Conception as itself [End Page 217] a sophianic dogma (172). However, in some places the susceptibility of Bulgakov's Orthodox theology to this "catholicization" is surely overstated. For example, Slesinski's assumption that "Catholics and Orthodox subscribe to the same ontological understanding of sanctification" (95) overlooks the specificities of the Orthodox understanding of Theosis, and the typically Orthodox disputes surrounding Gregory Palamas and Barlaam of Seminara. Furthermore, the question as to whether the Virgin Mary's Immaculate Conception would reduce the significance of the incarnation is not addressed. The following three chapters (9–11), along with chapters 13 and 14, focus on the "Greater Trilogy," and introduce the reader to Bulgakov...