BE HONEST

BEFORE GOD

Foreword 1

The bishop of the Church must be the guardian and defender of her teaching – this is an integral part of the episcopal ministry. I found myself a bishop at a time when the fulfillment of this difficult duty requires special theological depth and the ability to analyze what is happening.

For, I believe, we are at the threshold of a special period. It will now be increasingly difficult to understand what a true defense of Christian truth requires of us. Many believe that the best, if not the only, way to defend our doctrine is to persistently remind, in clear and understandable modern language, of "the faith once delivered to the saints."

And it is quite natural that supporters of this point of view will always be the majority. In recent years, there have been quite a few theologians and apologists in the Church who have devoted themselves to this task. Their work gained ardent followers, and it is clear that the demand for such apologetics is not decreasing. Everything that I will say next does not negate its values.

And yet, looking to the future, I think what is required of us is more than a modernized retelling of traditional orthodox teaching. If this is all we can do to defend the faith, we will probably eventually find that no one listens to us anymore except a tiny remnant of religious lovers. It seems to me that we need a much more radical renewal, in the course of which we will have to reconsider the most fundamental categories of our theology, such as the concept of God, the supernatural, and religion itself. I can at least understand those who say that we should (though it is certainly impossible) stop using the word "God" for a generation, so imbued with ideas that it is time to part with, if we want the gospel to remain meaningless.

For I am convinced that there is a gap between the traditional orthodox supernaturalism, in the language of which our faith is expressed, and the categories in which the modern "secular" world (I would say so, for lack of a more appropriate expression), there is a gap that is growing ever wider. By this I do not mean that the gulf between Christianity and pagan society is growing. This goes without saying.

The gap I am talking about does not depend on the attitude toward the truth of the gospel itself. After all, in the division that worries me, many Christians find themselves on the same side with those who do not consider themselves Christians. And among thinking non-Christian friends, I see many who are much closer to the Kingdom of Heaven than they themselves think. They think that they are rejecting the Gospel, but in fact they are repelled primarily by a specific worldview that is really untrustworthy.

Moreover, I myself am cut in two by the dividing line, although over time a smaller part of my being remains "on the right side" of the border. For example, when I listen to a discussion between a Christian and a humanist on the radio or watch on television, I often find myself sympathizing with the humanist. This is not because my faith or devotion to God is wavering. I simply instinctively share with the humanist the inability to accept the worldview schemes and religious models in which the faith presented to him is clothed. I feel that he is right in rebelling against them, and I am increasingly embarrassed that "orthodoxy" should be identified with them.

I will analyze these schemes later. In the meantime, I want to express the point of view that radical questioners who question the established structures of religious consciousness and believe that this is their contribution to the general apologetic task of the Church should also be recognized as genuine and even necessary defenders of the faith.

I am not inclined to be complacent. I am afraid that as we begin to bridge the gulf, it will become much wider, and in the Church, as well as outside it, there will be a growing estrangement between the adherents of habitual (albeit renewed) recipes and those who consider honesty their highest duty, whatever it may lead to. Unfortunately, I have to agree with the words of Dr. Alec Vidler4 from a recent (November 4, 1962) television program that have been so violently attacked: "Now we will have a very long time to catch up: after all, real, deep thinking, intellectual honesty and concern have so often been suppressed in the Church!" Those who consider the traditional structure of metaphysics and morality to be quite acceptable, for I myself am largely one of them. But I am disheartened when, in the name of defending the faith, those who think otherwise are branded as traitors with a frenzy that hides their own insecurities.

It seems to me that all this is too similar to what happened in our Church a hundred years ago, when (as it is now recognized) the champions of traditional orthodoxy made it almost impossible to truly apologize for the gospel.5 Looking back at the path traveled since then, we see that almost everything that was said then in the Church was marked by excessive conservatism. And what I have tried to express in this book in a tentative, debatable manner will now seem radical, and to many, of course, heresy. But I am sincerely convinced that time will pass, and my mistake will be seen in the lack of radicalism.

JOHN WOOLWICH