The Theology of the Cross and the Theology of Glory - (Theologia crucis-Theologia gloriae): Part 1 of 4

The Theology of the Cross and the Theology of Glory 
(Theologia crucis-Theologia gloriae)

Introduction

By Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou

On the occasion of the feast of the Exaltation of the Honorable Cross, we must see the great value of the Honorable Cross in relation to the Resurrection of Christ.

And this is because in Orthodox theology, the Cross and the Resurrection of Christ are closely connected, or as it is called, the theologia crucis with the theologia gloriae, and they cannot be separated. That is, it cannot be maintained that the Cross of Christ is a simple historical event and the Resurrection of Christ is an eschatological event, because this is a great theological error.

Previously, it was argued that Western theology is based more on the Cross with the theory of the atonement of divine justice through the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, which is why the Orthodox Church is the Church of the Resurrection.

This is not theologically valid from an Orthodox perspective. Of course, scholastic theology has developed the theory of the atonement of divine justice on the Cross. This was done mainly by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century, as Professor Demetrios Tselengidis has developed it thoroughly. In his excellent book titled The Satisfaction of Divine Justice According to Anselm of Canterbury (Ἡ ἱκανοποίηση τῆς θείας δικαιοσύνης κατά τόν Ἄνσελμο Καντερβουρίας) he presented the full perspective of this view.

The basis of Anselm of Canterbury, as developed by Professor Demetrios Tselengidis, is that God constitutes the "highest justice," which is identified with the "principle of God's honor," and these two are connected with the "order of creation," since God has established order in creation and cannot act beyond it. Furthermore, the sin committed by man is regarded "as an offense against God and as a disruption of the order of creation." However, God "cannot forgive sinful man," because that would compromise His justice and honor. Thus, the question arises: "Is it God’s satisfaction or man’s punishment?" Consequently, the incarnation of God is seen as the satisfaction of divine justice, and the crucifixion is closely associated with "the merit of Christ," as the reward received by Christ from the Father, since the Son who died on the Cross, as sinless, offers Himself to mankind.

This theory of "the satisfaction of divine justice" on the Cross is foreign to the ancient and later tradition of the Orthodox Church. And if in some texts there are some phrases, they have a different content from the Western theory of the atonement of divine justice, which was based on feudal Frankish models that prevailed in the West.

In Orthodox theology, Christ became incarnate out of love for man, not to supposedly atone for the “wounded justice of God,” but to overcome sin, the devil, and death and to give humanity Himself “as a medicine of immortality” so that he might be healed. For this reason, Christ took on the entire human nature in order to heal man, because “that which is not assumed is not healed,” according to Saint Gregory the Theologian. The incarnation did not take place in order for God to be “healed,” as if He were “wounded” by man’s sin, but in order to heal man, that is, to purify him according to His image and to guide him towards His likeness.

That is why in Orthodox theology the mystery of the Cross is closely linked to the mystery of the Resurrection and the mystery of Pentecost, that is, the Cross is also the glory of Christ, according to His words, “now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him” (John 13:31). Thus, the theology of the Cross (theologia crucis) is closely connected with the theology of glory (theologia gloriae).

This is evident throughout the life of the Church, since the taking up of the Cross of Christ with asceticism, the purification of the nous, is connected with the Resurrection of Christ, with the illumination of the nous and theosis. The patristic theology and hymnography of the Church are full of this integrated theology.

In contrast to these, some Orthodox theologians began to be influenced by Western influences years ago and to separate the mystery of the Cross from the mystery of glory. Indeed, there are some who emphasize the eschatological elements expressed by the Resurrection of Christ as opposed to the Cross, which connects it to history.

It is important to see what three contemporary theologians said and wrote about the Cross and the Resurrection of Christ, namely Father George Florovsky, Father John Romanides, and Metropolitan John of Pergamon. Reading their thoughts, one can discern the difference between Orthodox theology and Orthodox asceticism from theological reflection.

Father George Florovsky connects the theology of glory with the theology of the Cross, that is, the Cross is the sign of glory. Christ as a man died on the Cross, descended into the abyss of death, and death was destroyed by the lightning of His glory. This is the theology of the day of Pascha with the hymn “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death.”

The mystery of the Cross should not be interpreted either through the views of Doceticism, that Christ apparently became incarnate, or in a Kenotic manner, that Christ emptied Himself of His divinity on the Cross. In both cases, the theology of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod that in Christ the two natures were united “unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably” is destroyed.

Within the dogma of Chalcedon, the baptism of Christians is understood as the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of man. Whoever does not understand the mystery of the Cross does not understand the mystery of the person of Christ.

Father John Romanides follows the teaching of Father George Florovsky, but expands it within the secret and ascetic/hesychastic tradition of the Church. The mystery of the Cross is united with the mystery of the Resurrection and glory of Christ, which constitutes the reconciliation of man with God, and makes him a friend of God.

In the mystery of the person of Christ there is an exchange of the properties of the two natures, divine and human, and the friend of Christ experiences it through purification, illumination and theosis, when the believer, by the power of the Cross of Christ, is freed from the slavery of the devil and sin, and transforms self-love into philothea (love for God) and philanthropy (love for man).

This is seen in the Old Testament, but especially in the New Testament and in the life of the deified beyond the grave.

The fruit of theosis that connects love with truth is not a product of scientific, speculative and dialectical intelligence, but the result of the fusion of the mystery of the Cross and the Resurrection of Christ.

Metropolitan John of Pergamon distances himself from this teaching of Father George Florovsky and from the entire Orthodox Tradition, as expressed by the Fathers of the Church, and separates the theology of the Cross from the theology of glory. He certainly condemns Western theology, which is based only on the Cross of Christ, but he degrades the mystery of the Cross in relation to the Kingdom of God and eschatology, when he speaks of the “transcendence of the Cross” and the “transcendence of Golgotha.”

This means that he does not understand the mystery of the Cross through the Christological dogma, as expressed by the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, and he reflects on this great mystery, belittling the Cross of Christ in opposition to His Resurrection and eschatology!!

Whoever has not understood the mystery of Christ, in Whom the divine and human natures are united “unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;” whoever has not understood what “the taking up of the Cross of Christ” means for Christians and what Orthodox asceticism means, as interpreted by Saint Gregory Palamas and the Philokalic Fathers, cannot understand the theology of the Cross and the theology of glory. Thus, he is ignorant of Orthodox theology, which differs both from Scholastic/Protestant theology and from Russian theology.

PART TWO