Source: Public Orthodoxy
Dr. Paul Ladouceur
Orthodox Theologian
Editor’s Note: Dr. Paul Ladouceur, distinguished theologian, teacher, and cherished voice in the Orthodox Christian tradition, fell asleep in the Lord on Friday, June 13, 2025. He was 81. He submitted this essay to Public Orthodoxy just before his passing. Paul was not merely a contributor but a beloved friend of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center and a frequent, passionate voice for Public Orthodoxy. May his memory be eternal!
George Florovsky’s appeal for a “return to the Fathers,” which he called “neopatristic synthesis,” is often misunderstood, especially his notion of “the mind of the Fathers.” Although Georges Florovsky often referred to the neopatristic synthesis, he never really clarified what he meant by this rather catchy name. The neopatristic synthesis is the positive counterpart to the pseudomorphosis that Florovsky explored and exposed so thoroughly in The Ways of Russian Theology, an alternative to both Western-dominated academic theology and speculative religious philosophy. For Florovsky, the “patristic synthesis” of the early Fathers involved on the one hand Biblical revelation (the “thesis”); and on the other, Greek philosophy (the “antithesis”)—as ways of knowing God. The “synthesis” in this case was patristic theology—Judeo-Christian revelation expressed and expounded in Christianized Hellenistic terms. Florovsky was well aware of potential danger of merely restating the words of the Fathers, which he derisively called a “theology of repetition”; hence he emphasized the notion of “acquiring the mind of the Fathers.”
Florovsky’s appeal for a neopatristic theological approach is first and foremost a theological method: briefly, the application of a patristic mode of thought, or a patristic way of doing theology, to modern problems. Florovsky advocates the recovery of the “patristic style” in Orthodox theology, not merely the letter of patristic teachings but the spirit of the Fathers: “The road ‘to the Fathers’ in any case leads only forward, never back,” he proclaimed in The Ways of Russian Theology in 1937, “The point is to be true to the patristic spirit, rather than to the letter alone.”[1]
Based on indications that he gave over the years, the following eight elements enter into Florovsky’s notion of what constitutes the ‘patristic mind’:
1. For Florovsky, as for the ancient Fathers, Scripture is the foundation of all theology. In Scripture, Judeo-Christian revelation, “we see not only God, but man too. It is the revelation of God, but what is actually revealed is God’s concern about man. God reveals himself to man, … converses with him so as to reveal to man the hidden meaning of his own existence and the ultimate purpose of his life.” Thus theology must be grounded in Scripture, as Florovsky emphasizes: “The divine Spirt breathes in the organism of human speech. Thus it becomes possible for man to utter words of God, to speak of God. Theology becomes possible – theologia, i.e. logos peri theou. Strictly speaking, theology grows possible only through revelation.”[2]
2. Florovsky’s theology is strongly Christocentric and thus he insists that Christ is the centre of theological reflection: “What, then, are we going to preach? …. There is no room for hesitation: I am going to preach Jesus, and him crucified and risen” (see 1 Cor. 2:2).[3] Speaking of the neopatristic synthesis as “the task and aim of Orthodox theology today,” Florovsky writes unambiguously that “The synthesis must begin with the central vision of the Christian faith: Christ Jesus, as God and Redeemer, Humiliated and Glorified, the Victim and the Victor on the Cross.”[4] This is clearly reflected in Florovsky’s own theology. His most significant theological contributions are in ecclesiology, crowned by his masterly study “The Body of the Living Christ: An Orthodox Interpretation of the Church.”[5]
3. Theology must have a firm historical awareness, both the history of salvation as revealed in Scripture and the history of the Church. “The Gospel is history,” writes Florovsky, “Historic events are the source and basis of all Christian faith and hope. … From the very beginning, from the very day of Pentecost, … apostolic preaching had emphatically a historical character. By this historical witness the Church stands.” This historical awareness anchors the theologian in the church : “Theological consciousness must become historical consciousness and can attain catholicity only to the extent of its historicity. … To theologize in the church is to theologize in the historical mode, because the life of the church (tserkovnost’) is, in fact, Holy Tradition.”[6]
4. Florovsky considers that there is a need for a catholic consciousness in Orthodox theology, defined as “The ability and the power to perceive and express the consciousness and life of the whole. This kind of ‘catholic transfiguration’ can occur only in the conciliarity [sobornost’] of the church.”[7] Florovsky draws on the Slavophile-religious philosophy term sobornost’, contrasting this with “individualism” and “one’s private niche.” Florovsky is asserting that theology must be conducted in the church, for the church and as a reflection of the testimony and tradition of the church.
5. For Florovsky, Orthodox theology must be fundamentally Hellenistic: “Russian theological thought must yet be rigorously schooled in Christian Hellenism. Hellenism can be said to have become a perpetual dimension of the church, having been incorporated into the very fabric of church life as an eternal category of Christian existence.”[8]. Florovsky’s insistence on theological Hellenism allows him to critique, even to the point of excess, theologies employing other schools of Christian thought and modern philosophies, particularly idealism, which could distort or even falsify authentic Christian theology.
6. Although it might appear that Florovsky’s call for “a return to the Fathers” might be an appeal for emphasis on patristic studies, in fact he calls for neopatristic theology to focus on contemporary issues and problems, just as the ancient Fathers focussed on contemporary issues and problems of their times: “[The neopatristic syntheses] is to be addressed to the new age, with its own problems and queries.”[9]
7. Florovsky strongly emphasized the integration of theology with the prayer and sacramental life of the Church – the Fathers were ‘Holy Men of Old’, not simply ‘theologians’ in the modern academic sense: “They were more than simply legislators, they were true prophets, in the true sense of this word – they beheld the mystery of God. (They were first of all men of insight and faith.) They were men of God, seers.”[10]
8. For Florovsky, Orthodox theology has an ecumenical responsibility: “Orthodoxy is summoned to witness. … And Orthodox theology is called upon to show that the ‘ecumenical question’ can only be resolved in the fulfilment of the church, within the totality of a catholic tradition, uncontaminated and inviolable, yet ever renewed and ever growing.”[11] This implies going beyond mere rejection of undesirable Western influences and replacing them with the true patristic foundations of theology; this “purified” Orthodox theology must return to the West in order to “bear witness” to Orthodox theology as the authentic Christian theology.
Thus the mind of the Fathers is not the mere invocation of patristic thought to resolve this or that theological question; it is not so much patristic content but rather a true theological method, well grounded in Scripture, the Fathers of old and the liturgy. Properly understood, Florovsky’s appeal for a neopatristic turn in Orthodox theology remains a valid and fruitful theological method to address contemporary issues and problems. Florovsky’s basic intuition of the need for Orthodox theology “to acquire the patristic mind” – the patristic way of doing theology – remains a call for our times.
[1] Georges Florovsky, “Breaks and Links,” in The Patristic Witness of Georges Florovsky: Essential Writings, eds. Brandon Gallaher and Paul Ladouceur, Academic Introduction by Gallaher and Ladouceur and a Preface by Kallistos Ware (London: T & T Clark, 2019)., 166.
[2] Georges Florovsky, “Revelation and Interpretation” (1951), in Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1972), 20-21; 27.
[3] Georges Florovsky, “The Lost Scriptural Mind” (1951), Bible, Church, Tradition:, 11.
[4] Georges Florovsky, “The Ethos of the Orthodox Church” (1959), PWGF, 297.
[5] Georges Florovsky, “The Body of the Living Christ: An Orthodox Interpretation of the Church,” in The Living Christ: The Theological Legacy of Georges Florovsky, eds. John Chryssavgis and Brandon Gallaher (London: T&T Clark, 2021), 437-484.
[6] Florovsky, “Breaks and Links,” PWGF, 167-168.
[7] Florovsky, “Breaks and Links,” PWGF, 166.
[8] Florovsky, “Breaks and Links,” PWGF, 168.
[9] Georges Florovsky, “‘Theological Will,’” PWGF, 242.
[10] Florovsky, “‘Theological Will,’” PWGF, 242.
[11] Florovsky, “Breaks and Links,” PWGF, 173-74.
