In English:
Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia: Easter Greeting to Pope Benedict XVI
Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia: The church, society and politics: a view from Moscow (Part II)
Berlin Declaration on Interreligious Dialogue
Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev’s new book in Romanian
En français:
Le métropolite Cyrille a participé à l’assemblée du Conseil des droits de l’homme de l’ONU
Le patriarche Alexis a reçu le président du Musée du Louvre et l’ambassadeur de France en Russie
Auf Deutsch:
Bischof Hilarion Alfeyev: Gott der Schöpfer
Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia: Easter Greeting to Pope Benedict XVI
Christ is Risen!
On the days of bright Paschal festival we glorify Our Savior Jesus Christ, Who broke the power of death and illuminated the way to life and immortality (2 Timothy 1:10).
Life of modern world is full of hardships and challenges. Many countries and regions go through bloody conflicts, the hostility between people grows. Christian values are forced out of social life.
But no matter how complicated the reality is Christians are called to win over the unbelief of “this world,” overcome all troubles and difficulties and get inspired by the Paschal joy and words of our Lord Jesus Christ: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world (John 16:33).
I heartily congratulate you on the Holy Easter and wish you joy, good health and God’s help in all good undertakings.
With love in Christ Resurrected,
+Alexy, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia
Easter 2008, Moscow
Similar letter was sent to the heads of other Christian Churches and communities celebrating the Resurrection of Christ in compliance with the Western paschal cycle.
Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia: The church, society and politics: a view from Moscow (Part II)
The role of church within society
I remember a meeting in 2004 between the President of the Russian Federation and the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was then taking place. Vladimir Putin said at the time that gradually the government was paying back its debts to the church. 1 must point out that the clergy also has a debt to the people. We owe the people that same love that they showed to churches and priests during the hard times. We have to do everything possible and put a stop to the impossible so as not to deceive the people, who expect our help and participation. Yes, the material church is not as rich as some think. But it is not just material support that is expected of us. Often a good word said at the right moment, a hand proffered in friendship or sincere participation, but mostly prayer, can work miracles. Be that as it may, we will do what we can to combat one of the major problems of post-soviet countries-poverty. The Jubilee Council of Bishops in 2000 adopted the Foundations of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, calling on society "for a fair distribution of the products of labour in which the rich shall support the poor, the healthy the sick, the able-bodied the elderly". In these complex times, when abandoned children and old people living in poverty are striking examples of spiritual impoverishment, the hopeful eyes of a great many are turned towards the church.
The life of the Russian Orthodox Church cannot be seen separately from the fate of the people. Why did the church acquire such high authority in society? Is it not because Christ’ s disciples turned, and still turn, to where there is much grief, hopelessness and human suffering, to prisons, hospitals, children’s shelters and homes for the elderly, helping people to bear privation and at times to regain the meaning of life?
A true scourge of our times is orphanhood while the parents are still alive. Thousands of homeless and unsupervised children make up the ranks of young criminals. This stark, sinful reality will spoil a child’s delicate heart for a long time, if not forever. If it should happen that a family is not able to feed its children, they must go to work at an early age, faced with burdens beyond their strength and the indifference of the adults. Thrown into adulthood prematurely, the child still remains a child, needing attention and affection. Our church organises youth groups that visit children’s homes and shelters. Priests and laymen take the children in to bring them up. A number of monasteries have children’s shelters. Together with parishes, the monasteries have set up various sections and groups, allowing the children and youths from single-parent and unstable families some leisure time. Camps, tourist outings, excursions and pilgrimages are organised.
Another tragedy is that of the elderly and disabled, who have to eke out a miserable existence. They literally must rely on the crumbs from the tables of those who are better off. Monasteries and churches have dining halls for the poor and distribution points for donations and humanitarian aid. Through these anyone who wishes can provide as much succour as he is able to a neighbour in need. The priests and parishioners-among whom are many young people-visit the sick and old, providing material and practical household assistance. Some parishes have doctors and lawyers who provide free assistance to those in need in solving day-to-day problems.
Today, Orthodox churches are active in many prisons while fundraising and construction of churches is very often in the hands of the prisoners themselves. From personal experience I know how much interest there is the word of the Gospel in places of confinement. Truly, the more churches we shall have, the fewer prisons we shall need. After all upon release the convict may be cut off from society, raising problems of finding work, a place to live and adjusting to life as a free person. It is the church’s task-and that of the whole society-to help restore such people to normal life. Through prayer and the word of God, many former inmates show repentance, find hope and serenity and prepare for a new life.
One characteristic of the big cities is the presence of the homeless. According to several statistics, most of them stay alive for about one year under those circumstances and then die. The Orthodox service Miloserdie (Mercy) was founded in 2004 to assist the homeless. A specially equipped bus regularly drives near the places where these people are, saving them from the cold. Staff of the service and volunteers provide hot meals and medical first aid. When necessary, hospital care can be arranged and help provided with documentation and finding work.
The church in Russia is now taking up the issue of poverty in a nation-wide discussion. The topic of wealth and poverty was central in the 11th World Russian People’s Council - a civic forum with the active participation of the church, which was held in the spring of 2007 in Moscow. During my opening address to the Council 1 said that "we all--church, government, enterprise and society as a whole-must be concerned that there should be as few poor, marginalised, desperate people as possible". According to official data, the gap between citizens with a high and those with a low income in 2006 was more than fifteen times as great. Therefore, the council’s concluding document raised the question of a progressive tax on high incomes and luxury items, so that the resources thus generated could be used in full to reduce this gap. The council also addressed many other important issues. Thus, a negative response was given to the plans to sharply increase taxes on housing. The potential role of a stabilisation fund in the socio-economic development of Russia was mentioned. The council stressed the need to combat corruption, which, "having become a rope around the neck of Russia’s economy, especially the small and medium enterprises, undermines the prestige of the country in a monstrous way and obstructs its investment climate".
In today’s society, where words can have a material effect, the voice of the church is not always heard. In the exclusive circles of the market mechanisms, the victors are human passions: greed, adultery, cruelty and vanity. Some adults behave like children who unexpectedly are allowed ‘everything, right now’. But, thank God, the intoxication of freedom is beginning to wane, revealing neglected problems that can only be solved if we all work together.
One of these problems is pseudo-religious extremism. Its roots spring from an ignorance of religious matters and its breeding ground lies in unresolved economic and social problems combined with an alien way of life that is foisted on people, one that is out of step with their social and political models. All this constitutes a serious threat to the stability of today’s world. This is why our church tries to stand for the integrity of civilisations and calls for a peaceful solution to all conflicts. In this context, the issue of positive instruction of religion in schools is quite relevant. Introducing les sons on the basics of Orthodox Christianity or, for example, Islamic culture as subjects that could be chosen by students and their parents would not only help to overcome extremist tendencies but also to promote a healthy way of life among our youth and defend family values. Experience has shown that in countries and regions where such teaching is already conducted, it acts as an intra-national peacemaker, instilling an understanding of the participants’ own history and culture and fostering respect for representatives of other religious traditions.
Throughout its history, the Russian Orthodox Church has proven itself to be a peacemaking force. As early as the fourteenth century, St Sergey of Radonezh united the Russian princes in a peace mission. There have never been drawn-out interreligious conflicts on Russian soil. For centuries Christians, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists have lived in peace, creating a prosperous homeland. And today the Orthodox Church, with its peacemaking tradition in mind, shares with its people not only the joys but also the difficult trials that have befallen them.
In the turbulent year of 1993, the dramatic clash between the legislative and executive powers in the new Russia could have led the nation to the brink of civil war. Church leaders presided over the negotiations between the opposing factions, accepting the burdensome cross of mediation. The mass media broadcast the Patriarch’s call for a peaceful solution. This valuable step smoothed the conflict and ultimately prevented hatred and fratricidal discord from triumphing.
Many will recall the meeting between the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Mufti of Chechnya, Muhammad-Hussein Alsabakov. A joint declaration by the two spiritual leaders was made in a period of intense bloodshed in the northern Caucasus. The aim of the declaration was to prevent the tragedy from escalating and turning into a religious conflict.
Mention must be made here of the activities of the Interreligious Council of Russia, whose Interreligious Peace Forums are one of its outstanding achievements. The first forum took place in 2000 and was attended by the spiritual leaders of the traditional religious communities of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). At the initiative of the Second Inter-religious Peace Forum in 2004 the Interreligious Council of the CIS was founded, whose task it is to achieve intra-national conciliation and the prevention of ethnic conflicts. A bright event was the World Summit of Religious Leaders in Moscow in 2006. The heads and representatives of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and Shinto communities from 49 countries attended. The message from the summit was a call to unite efforts towards solving global problems and establishing peace based on mutual respect. The use of religion as a means to foment hatred or as a pretext for crimes against persons, morality and mankind is one of today’s challenges. The only proper way to deal with that is through education and moral upbringing. The school, the mass media and sermons from spiritual leaders must recover in our contemporaries a full understanding of their religious traditions, calling on them for peace and love. At the summit, the religious leaders reiterated their willingness to develop a dialogue with adherents of non-religious views, with politicians, with all levels of civil society and with international organisations.
Conclusion
All the problems described above indicate a profound sense of unhealthiness and crisis in today’s world. People need clear goals and visible references. We should remember that a viable society can only be built through harmony of soul and body. Politics concern themselves par excellence with earthly matters, while religion attempts to give meaning to human life. Without spiritual principles, the activities of the authorities are like attempts to maintain life in a body from which the soul has departed. If the natural equilibrium between the spiritual and the material is broken, our society will face min and will yield its place to other peoples. Only if the state authorities unite their efforts with ail well-intentioned powers can a society be built that is free from the yoke of untruths and violence, conceit and destructive voluptuousness, utter indifference and naked envy.
The Almighty God is the source of all power (Matthew 28:18), granting to all the freedom to choose their path on earth. In making our choice, however, we are not only accountable to ourselves but also to our neighbours. Political activity is a special kind of service. It assumes power over people but at the same time imposes a heavy responsibility. As Holy Scripture says, “If you shall fear the Lord and serve him and obey his words and not fight the commandments of the Lord, then you and your king that rules over you shall follow the Lord your God ... and if you do evil then you and your king shall succumb" (1 Samuel 12:14,25).
So let us serve one another, and "as every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God" (1 Peter 4:10).
Berlin Declaration on Interreligious Dialogue
2008 has been declared the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. In a pluralistic Europe dialogue across dividing lines - be they cultural, linguistic or religious - is of the greatest importance. All over Europe issues related to identity are body debated, and often religion is at die centre of discussions. Europe and Europeans are also constantly interacting with die rest of the world, experiencing the joys and the challenges of communicating across cultural and religious divides.
Sometimes religion is seen as an obstacle to peaceful coexistence and social cohesion. At the same time we know that some of the most pressing challenges in our time - climate change, poverty, migration, marginalisation of women, (incrimination and terrorism - can only be solved if we unite resources across traditional dividing lines.
3 to 5 March 2008 the European Council of Religious Leaders - Religions for Peace met in Berlin, a city which symbolises a history of division in Europe as well as reconciliation and new beginnings. As religious leaders we support initiatives to further dialogue in this continent. In order to promote bold, responsible and well-informed interreligious dialogue on all levels of European society, we hereby offer the Berlin Declaration on Interreligious Dialogue.
1. Religion permeates Europe. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are part of European history. Today other great religious traditions have also found a place in the continent. In every town or village in Europe there is at least one house of worship: a Church,, a Mosque or a Synagogue. To ensure a prosperous and harmonious future for Europe people of different faiths must live peacefully together.
2. Interreligious dialogue emphasises both our similarities and our differences. In interreligious dialogue we acknowledge that human beings of all faiths share certain experiences, needs and longings. We also acknowledge that we are different from each other in many respects and will remain different Our religious traditions have formed different social rules and models which sometimes contradict each other. One aim of interreligious dialogue is to reduce false perceptions of difference and culture gaps, while we respect that something about our dialogue partner will necessarily remain other (or even alien) to us.
3. Interreligious dialogue should promote respect for human rights. Interreligious dialogue should respect the shared values found within all great religious traditions and embodied within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Commitment to human rights does not preclude a variety of world views or ethical systems and interpretations.
4. The invitation to the dialogue is open. The more we differ, die more we need dialogue. It is not a precondition for dialogue that we share a aide spectrum of values and ideas. Only clear breaches of respect for die most fundamental values, such as the tight to life and the rule of law, should exclude people from being invited into dialogue. While die invitation is open, everyone must abide by the agreed rides of a particular dialoguing situation. Women and young people have important perspectives and contributions to offer and should have distinct voices in interreligious dialogue.
5. Interreligious dialogue is a mode of relating to other faiths and has a transforming potential. Interreligious dialogue is a particular way of interacting with others through which, all who are involved can be transformed. Dialogue on issues of faith and identity is not negotiations, because we do not seek agreement, it is not debates, because we do not seek to win over the other, and it is more than a discussion because we contribute not only rational arguments but personal and emotive stories and experiences and thus engage existentially with, each other.
6. Interreligious dialogue affirms the integrity of religious beliefs. In dialogue we come closer to each other without necessarily becoming more similar. All who engage in interreligious dialogue should do so with full integrity in their own religious tradition and without compromise to what they hold dear. In interreligious dialogue we do not aim at creating a new or shared religion.
7. Interreligious dialogue addresses asymmetric power relationships with honesty. The power relationship between different religious groups is sometimes asymmetric. This can be caused by for example poverty /wealth, language, gender or numbers (minority/majority). Interreligious dialogue must not be used to obscure this. In dialogue the facts and experiences of asymmetric power should be addressed, and mechanisms should be found to give voice to those who struggle to be heard.
8. Interreligious dialogue furthers stakeholdership and participation in society. Interreligious dialogue should address a wide spectrum of issues. It is important to explore shared values and address common concerns, but one should not shy away from addressing issues on which there are disagreement, uncertainty or even fear of die other. Some current trends, such as rapid development of new technology in biology, medicine and communication and changing understandings of family arc closely linked to questions of values and identities, Religions do not agree on the responses to these questions, but should discuss these matters with openness and courage. Dialogue is not a means to a predefined end, but it is intrinsic to genuine dialogue that it furthers mutual understanding, respect for differences, and the participation and stakeholdership of all in society and thus strengthens social cohesion.
9. Interreligious dialogue leads to common action. A full understanding of interreligious dialogue includes common action - diapraxis. The dignity of human life, to winch all religions are committed, is challenged for example through poverty, violence, abuse of women and children, discrimination of migrants and dramatic changes in the natural environment Different religions can address these issues together, although our ethics may draw on different resources. Interreligious dialogue should aim at mustering the resources of varying religious traditions to take up the challenges which Europe faces today. Through common action we learn to understand better ourselves, each other, and die world in winch we live.
10. Structures for interreligious cooperation are an asset in times of crisis. Repeatedly religion plays a role in situations of conflict Established and trustful structures for interreligious dialogue axe a tremendous strength when relationships between communities deteriorate. Religious leaders must address dangerous and violent perversions of religion within then: own communities.
11. Knowledge and confidence in a tradition furthers interreligious understanding. Open and trustful interreligious dialogue is furthered by a secure knowledge of one’s own religious tradition as well as that of others. This knowledge should be taught in a spirit of peace and respect for die different traditions. Intrinsic to many religions are truth claims that are mutually exclusive. This is no more an impediment to dialogue and the full participation in society than the explicit or implicit truth claims of secular ideologies. Dialogue between religions, cultures and social groups is often dialogue across opposing truth claims and world views.
12. Religion has a natural place also in the public sphere. Religion continues to have an important role to play in the public life of a Europe with many religions. This applies to minorities and majorities alike. The public display of religious symbols or celebration of religious festivals should neither be seen as offensive to other religions nor a threat to social cohesion. Religious minorities in Europe generally do not feel offended by for example, public Christmas or Easter celebrations in countries where this is a tradition as long as their own freedom of religion is respected.
13. Religious leaders, religious people and the authorities share responsibility for interreligious dialogue. Convinced that interreligious dialogue is important for a peaceful and prosperous Europe we call on religious leaders of all religious traditions and in ever.’ corner of Europe to join in interreligious dialogue based on the principles outlined in this declaration. We call on all religious people in Europe to enter into the most important, dialogue of all, "the dialogue of life", in the local community, in families and workplaces with confidence and courage. We call on the authorities on local, national and European level to engage constructively with religious communities in mutual respect for each other’s different, roles, and to create frameworks within which religious practices and interreligious dialogue based on the principles in this declaration may be further developed and prosper for the benefit of peaceful coexistence in Europe.
Adopted by the European Council of Religious Leaders - Religions for Peace
March 5, 2008
Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev’s new book in Romanian
‘Editura Sophia,’ a Bucharest-based publishing house, has published a study by Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev ‘Christ the Conqueror of Hell. The Descent into Hades from the Orthodox Perspective’ (Hristos, biruitorul iadului. Pogorarea la iad in perspectiva ortodoxa).
‘The descent of Christ into Hades is one of the most mysterious, enigmatic and inexplicable events in New Testament history,’ writes the author in the introduction. ‘In today’s Christian world, this event is understood differently. Most liberal Western theologians rejects altogether any possibility for speaking of the descent of Christ into Hades literally, arguing that the scriptural texts on this theme should be understood metaphorically. The traditional Catholic doctrine insists that after His death on the cross Christ did indeed descend into Hades, but only in order to deliver the Old Testament righteous from it… What was the original faith of the Church? What do early Christian sources tell us about the descent into Hades? What is the Orthodox Church’s position on this issue? And what is the soteriological significance of the descent of Christ into Hades from the Orthodox point of view? These and other related questions are dealt with in the present study.’
The study, which totals 248 pages, begins with the analysis of New Testament and apocryphal texts, as well as of early Christian poetry. Then follow a survey of passages from Eastern Church Fathers and an excursus into Western theological tradition. This is followed by comments on the hymns by St Ephrem the Syrian and St Romanos the Melodist. Finally, Orthodox liturgical texts are analyzed from the point of view of their dogmatic content. On the basis of this wide range of sources the author draws his conclusions about the theological and moral consequences of different understandings of Christ’s descent into hell.
Le métropolite Cyrille a participé à l’assemblée du Conseil des droits de l’homme de l’ONU
Le 18 mars, à Genève, le métropolite Cyrille de Smolensk et de Kaliningrad, président du département des relations extérieures du patriarcat de Moscou, a pris part au débat intitulé "Le dialogue interculturel sur les droits de l’homme" dans le cadre de la VIIe assemblée du Conseil des droits de l’homme de l’Organisation des Nations Unies.
Le travail de l’assemblée s’est étalé sur quinze jours, du 3 au 28 mars. C’est la première fois qu’à ses débats furent invités des représentants religieux. L’idée d’engager une discussion sur différentes approches des droits de l’homme a été soutenue par plusieurs Etats, dont la Fédération de Russie.
Dans son intervention (dont la traduction française intégrale sera publiée dans le prochain numéro du Messager de l’Eglise orthodoxe russe), le métropolite Cyrille présente longuement la vision des droits de l’homme du point de vue de la tradition orthodoxe et dans le contexte de l’héritage philosophique et historique russe.
Il y exprime l’attachement inaliénable de l’Eglise orthodoxe russe aux droits universels de l’homme: "Les chrétiens ne peuvent rester indifférents à l’avenir de ce message de première importance pour l’humanité, même si ce message des droits de l’homme est exprimé dans un langage séculier". Il a attiré l’attention cependant sur certaines dérives que les valeurs universelles connaissent dans certaines circonstances: "L’approche séculière pousse souvent les hommes à renoncer à l’expression publique de leur foi. Cela conduit à l’instauration d’une société irreligieuse que ne peut soutenir aucun homme véritablement croyant".
Ainsi, Mgr Cyrille a exprimé la conviction la notion "des droits de l’homme ne doit pas entrer en contradiction avec les normes éthiques que la majorité des êtes humains reconnait comme désirables. Si les droits de l’homme contribuent au relativisme éthique dans la société, ils seront dans cette interprétation étrangers aux croyants".
Enfin, le métropolite Cyrille a annoncé que l’Eglise orthodoxe russe prépare actuellement un document sur la vision orthodoxe des droits et de la dignité de l’homme qui sera examiné par le prochain concile des évêques du patriarcat de Moscou. Ce concile est prévu au courant de l’été 2008.
Le patriarche Alexis a reçu le président du Musée du Louvre et l’ambassadeur de France en Russie
Le 6 mars, le patriarche Alexis de Moscou a reçu dans sa résidence de travail Henri Loyrette, président du Musée du Louvre, accompagné notamment de l’ambassadeur de France en Russie Stanislas de Laboulaye.
Le Musée du Louvre prévoit l’organisation d’une exposition "Sainte Russie" qui présentera la spiritualité russe depuis l’évangélisation de la Russie jusqu’à Pierre le Grand. Cette exposition était le principal sujet abordé à la rencontre entre le patriarche Alexis et Henri Loyrette. Elle s"inscrira dans le cadre de l’année de Russie en France en 2010 qui suivra l’année de France en Russie (2009).
"Les liens culturels entre la Russie et la France sont très anciens, a affirmé le patriarche Alexis, recevant ses hôtes français. Ils remontent au prince Yaroslav le Sage qui a marié sa fille Anne au roi de France Henri Ier". Le primat de l’Eglise russe a rappelé également que la France a accueilli au XXe siècle une importante émigration en provenance de la Russie qui est un bel exemple d’entraide et de soutien entre les deux pays.
Le patriarche Alexis a remercié Henri Loyrette pour le projet du musée du Louvre: "Je suis convaincu que cette exposition donnera aux nombreux Français et aux hôtes de Paris la possibilité de découvrir la culture religieuse russe et la tradition spirituelle de l’orthodoxie russe".
L’exposition "Sainte Russie" retracera l’histoire millénaire du christianisme en Russie. Elle présentera notamment le premier épanouissement de l’art chrétien dans les principautés féodales aux XI-XII siècles (Kiev, Novgorod, Vladimir), hésitant entre Byzance et Occident latin. La période de domination mongole est suivie par le deuxième épanouissement de l’art russe, surtout dans les milieux monastiques (Théophane, André Roublev, Denys). Au XVI siècle, la Russie atteint son apogée sous le règne de Basile III et d’Ivan IV.
L’objectif de l’exposition sera de montrer que, bien avant les réformes de Pierre le Grand, l’art chrétien russe avait déjà toute sa place dans le paysage artistique de l’Europe.
Bischof Hilarion Alfeyev: Gott der Schöpfer
Eines der grundlegenden Dogmen des Christentums ist die Lehre von Gott dem Schöpfer, Der – im Unterschied zum platonischen Demiurgen, der den Kosmos aus einer Art Urmaterie erbaut – das Universum aus dem Nichts erschafft. Dazu heißt es im Alten Testament: „Schau den Himmel und die Erde an, und sieh alles, was in ihnen ist, und erkenne, dass Gott alles aus dem Nichts geschaffen hat” (2 Makk 7,28). Alles Existierende empfing das Sein dank des freien Schöpferwillens: „Er sprach, und es geschah, Er gebot, und es war da” (Ps 32[33],9). Für Gott bestand keine Notwendigkeit, die Welt erschaffen zu müssen: Sogar Seine Liebe, die wie jede andere Liebe ein Objekt der Liebe braucht, konnte Ihn nicht zur Schöpfung zwingen, da sie ihre Vollendung bereits in der Kommunikation der Hypostasen in der Göttlichen Dreifaltigkeit findet, wo jede Hypostase sowohl Subjekt als auch Objekt ist, liebt und geliebt wird. Gott hat die Welt nur deswegen geschaffen, weil er wollte, dass das „überströmende Leben”, das Er in Sich Selbst besaß, sich über die Grenzen Seiner Natur verströmte und das lebendige Dasein Anteil an der Göttlichen Güte und Heiligkeit erhielt.
An der Schöpfung haben alle drei Personen der Heiligen Dreifaltigkeit mitgewirkt; darüber ist bereits im Alten Testament prophetisch gesagt: „Durch das Wort des Herrn sind die Himmel geschaffen, und durch den Geist Seines Mundes kam ihre ganze Kraft” (Ps 32[33],6). Von der schöpferischen Rolle des Wortes Gottes spricht der Apostel Johannes am Anfang des Evangeliums: „Alles begann durch Ihn zu sein, und ohne Ihn begann nichts zu sein” (Joh 1,3). Vom Geist ist in der Bibel gesagt: „Die Erde war unansehnlich und öde, und Finsternis war über dem Abgrund, und der Geist Gottes lag über dem Wasser” (Gen 1,2). Das Wort und der Geist sind nach einem bildhaften Wort des heiligen Irenäus von Lyon „die zwei Hände des Vaters” (cf. Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way, London – Oxford 1979, 44). Die Rede ist vom Mit-Wirken, vom gemeinsamen Schaffen der Drei: Sie haben einen Willen, doch jedem kommt sein Wirken zu. „Der Vater ist die uranfängliche Ursache alles Seienden”, sagt der heilige Basilius der Große. „Der Sohn ist das schöpferische Prinzip, der Heilige Geist ist das vervollkommnende Prinzip, so dass durch den Willen des Vaters alles ins Dasein kommt, durch das Wirken des Sohnes alles zum Sein gebracht und durch die Gegenwart des Geistes alles vollendet wird” (PG 32, 136). Mit anderen Worten, in der Schöpfung kommt dem Vater eher die Rolle der Erstursache zu, dem Logos-Sohn (dem Wort) die Rolle des Demiurgen-Schöpfers, und der Heilige Geist vollendet, das heißt er führt alles Geschaffene zur Vollkommenheit.
Nicht zufällig bevorzugen die Väter der Kirche, wenn sie von der schöpferischen Rolle des Sohnes sprechen, Ihn „das Wort” zu nennen: Es zeigt den Vater, offenbart den Vater, und wie jedes Wort ist es jemandem zugewandt, in diesem Fall der gesamten Schöpfung. „Niemand hat Gott jemals geschaut: Der Eingeborene Sohn, der im Schoß des Vater ist, Er hat Ihn bekannt gemacht” (Joh 1,18). Der Sohn hat dem geschaffenen Sein den Vater gezeigt, durch den Sohn ergoss sich die Liebe des Vaters auf das geschaffene Sein, und es empfing das Leben. Schon bei Philo von Alexandrien erscheint der Logos als der Mittler zwischen Gott und der Schöpfung, die christliche Tradition spricht jedoch direkt von der schöpferischen Kraft des Logos. In diesem Sinn werden die Worte aus dem Buch des Propheten Jesaja gedeutet: „Mein Wort, Das aus meinem Mund hervorgeht, kehrt nicht vergeblich zu Mir zurück, sondern erfüllt, was Ich wünsche, und vollbringt, wozu Ich Es gesandt habe” (Jes 55,11). Zugleich ist der Logos der Plan und das Gesetz, nach dem alles geschaffen ist, die vernünftige Grundlage der Dinge, die alles zweckmäßig, vernünftig, harmonisch und vollkommen macht.
Das geschaffene Sein ist jedoch nicht von der gleichen Natur wie Gott: Es ist keine Emanation, kein Ausfluss der Gottheit. Das Göttliche Wesen erlitt im Prozess der Erschaffung der Welt keinerlei Teilung oder Veränderung: Es vermischte sich nicht mit der Kreatur und löste sich nicht darin auf. Gott ist ein Künstler, und die Schöpfung ist Sein Gemälde, auf dem wir seinen „Pinselstrich”, Seine „Hand” erkennen können, den Widerschein Seiner schöpferischen Vernunft, doch der Künstler verschwindet nicht in Seinem Bild: Er bleibt Derjenige, Der er war, schon bevor es geschaffen wurde.
Aus welchem Grund hat Gott alles erschaffen? Auf diese Frage antwortet die patristische Theologie: „Aus einem Überfluß von Liebe und Güte”. „Weil der gütige und übergütige Gott nicht damit zufrieden war, Sich Selbst zu schauen, sondern im Überfluss Seiner Güte wollte, dass etwas entstehe, das Seine Wohltaten hernach nutzen und an Seiner Güte teilhaben konnte, führte er vom Nichtsein ins Sein und schuf alles”, schreibt Johannes von Damaskus (Genaue Auslegung des Orthodoxen Glaubens 2,2). Mit anderen Worten: Gott wollte, dass noch etwas sei, das Seiner Seligkeit teilhaftig sei und Anteil habe an Seiner Liebe.
Aus dem Buch Geheimnis des Glaubens. Einführung in die orthodoxe dogmatische Theologie. Fortsetzung folgt.