The scholar discussed in this volume is himself keen to avoid scrutiny. Zizioulas insists that he has done no more than hand on the tradition of the Church, so he cannot be given credit for the theology he sets out. He does not believe that anyone regarded as a theologian could be the originator of their own product. The theologian merely points to what the Church says in the liturgy, for public confession of the source of our freedom is the beginning of theological discourse. Only the worship of the Church which returns thanks to God can say where freedom and truth come from. Without this confession, theology cannot make the first essential admission that, unless we confess the true God, we will continue to labour under many false gods, chief and most burdensome of which is our own selves. Theology that listens to the liturgy will recognise the revolution that is Christian monotheism, and welcome it as release and emancipation, and for this reason all theological work must be self-effacing. Nevertheless, in the contemporary academic scene Zizioulas certainly represents one of the most rigorous expressions of the neglected themes of the Christian faith.
If anyone is interested in more on Zizioulas, there is worthwhile material here. And just when I was becoming reconciled to the fact that reading him is going to be a relatively long-term project, he (or rather an editor) has gone and published another book!
March 2, 2008 at 7:14 pm
It is interesting to see how various people approach this issue of faithfully handing on the tradition of the Church.
Rowan Williams appeared to take one position on homosexuality when he was working as a theologian, but then as an Archbishop he appears to have taken a slightly different position, because he understands his role differently.
Ratzinger, too, appeared to take a slightly softer position on liberation theology when he was a professor, and then another harder position when he become the head of the CDF. As a professor he supervised, and encouraged, Leonardo Boff, as the head of the CDF, he silenced him.
I wonder how Williams and Ratzinger understood their relationships to Church tradition when they were in different roles.
March 3, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Hello Dan. You’re right about people reacting differently in their different roles. One could also add the transition from Cardinal Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI. (Although in the case of Rowan Williams I’m not sure that he’s changed his views on homosexuality as much as insisting on the ecclesial process). But I think that this is also appropriate, espcially for bishops. It is not their task to pursue their own agenda’s or thinking – although obviously there are nuances to this that are not so clear – as to ensure the well-being of the whole. For more on Williams – for whom I have immense sympathy – see
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/11017/
March 3, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Yes, I think that you are right about Williams. I also have a great deal of sympathy for him (and a lot of admiration, too!). I can’t say the same about Ratzinger.