Part II-1
Part II-2
Part II-3
Part III
From what we have examined, we could get a very strange picture of Theophilus. On the one hand, we have a very educated leader. Even before becoming Patriarch, he was known for his sharp mind. He had been a secretary for St Athanasius. Since he had distinguished himself with such great skill in that role, he became a popular choice for the Patriarchate.[i]It was from this erudition that he first stated his opposition to an anthropomorphic theology. Clearly he was influenced by the same strains of thought as the Origenists he was to condemn. Because of this, many have viewed his actions as purely political.[ii]Indeed, with the evidence we have, Theophilus could easily be seen to be like a politician who acted upon an opinion poll. But to view him like this would be wrong; he was not simply motivated by the shifting political tide. Rather, it is better to look at Theophilus and how he acted based upon the position he held: that of pastor.
Theophilus lived at a time when Christianity was rapidly growing. Once it had become the official religion of the state under Theodosius, it was receiving all kinds of converts from all walks of life. While many might have converted for intellectual reasons, this was not the case for everyone. In fact, it is probable that this kind of conversion was, and maybe always has been, in the minority.[iii]Converts without a sophisticated intellectual background were welcomed then just as they are today. The way they understood Christian doctrine and the Scriptures heard when at liturgy could be far simpler and more literal than their intellectual brethren. But it was this kind of Christian, one whose faith was simple but sincere, whom Theophilus had to pastor. When he started to allegorize Scripture, “He had run up against a strong, flourishing, and satisfying tradition among the uneducated Egyptian Copts, who interpreted literally language about the hand, eye, and vision of God, an could most naturally grasp divine ideas in material terms — reasonably enough, given their background, and the literalist flavor of the pagan religion with which many will have been familiar.”[iv] They could not understand what he had said; indeed, what he offered was more than a mere intellectual challenge, but what appeared to be a challenge to their faith.
Theophilus found himself in the midst of a major pastoral crisis. He had introduced a highly philosophical notion of God in his paschal letter. To his dismay, he found out that a majority of his people could not appreciate his message. It was clear that the kind of outrage he faced put his life at risk. He knew that a mob could easily kill him if he were to press the point he made further. But was that his sole concern? Perhaps we can say there was something more important than even his life: saving souls. If his teachings became an obstacle to the faith of the average Christian, the consequences would have been disastrous. Some, if not many, might have abandoned their new-found faith, thinking its teachings were too difficult to understand and believe. Others, if they turned to violence as a result of their anger, would put their very souls into jeopardy. And he knew he would have shared in the guilt of such violence, because it would have been the result of a poor pastoral decision on his part.
Thus, to understand his reaction, it might be better to have an explanation which looks to Theophilus, not as dictator, nor as one pushed around and dictated to, but as a pastor. And yet as a pastor, Theophilus was a complex figure. He was living in one of the most confusing times of Church history. The Church was trying to determine, in precise terms, what it believed. Its teachings were being discussed, debated, and clarified. This required not only the voice of the faithful but also the work of intellectuals. Educated leaders were needed for strengthening and clarifying the Church’s doctrines, so that when they were proclaimed, they could be as clear as possible without losing any of the sophistication needed to defend their accuracy. The Church needed someone who could and would work as a mediator between those who were more theologically astute and the common Christian. Theophilus tried to be that man. Before the Origenist controversy, Theophilus had taken on the role as mediator in other conflicts.[v]As Patriarch, he found he had to mediate the different levels of belief and understanding in his flock. Being a member of the intellectual elite himself, the Origenist crisis helped him see the kind of rift which was forming in the Church. The Christian message needed elaboration, but not at the expense of ordinary Christian and their understanding of the faith.
This can help us understand Theophilus better. We can see why, on the one hand, he could condemn the teachings of Origen for introducing the “rags of the philosophers” into the Church, while on the other hand, he could welcome someone like Synesius as bishop. The problem for him was not philosophy, but how Christians applied it to their faith. He wanted its use to be limited in scope: it should not be applied in situations where it could harm the faith of the ordinary Christian. Private opinions were not a problem as long as the one who held them looked after the public good and put it above themselves. “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (I Cor. 8:1b). St Paul had known Christians who were eating food sacrificed to idols because they believed the idols to be meaningless. Yet, others were scandalized by that practice. Paul urged those who believed they knew better to stop eating from the idols for the sake of Christian charity. “But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to those who are weak” (I Cor. 8:9). This pastoral decision of Paul is similar to the decision which Theophilus himself had to make. Yes, those who knew more might have a better, purer notion of God. The question was, however, how to approach this knowledge, and, following the example of Paul, the answer Theophilus came to was pastoral. It was better to preach faith in charity than to proclaim a teaching that would scandalize the majority of the Church. This is at the heart of Raynor’s understanding of Theophilus. “It could … be argued … that the outcry revealed to him the strength and value of the anthropomorphite tradition of spirituality, and that his action arose from a desire to remedy his misjudgment and acknowledge its value …“[vi]Theophilus came to understand that his own approach to God could not be appreciated by all, and he had to overcome his own private interpretations for the sake of his flock.
Theophilus, after the Origenistic crisis was over, went back to reading the works of Origen. This might seem strange: it certainly has led many to think that Theophilus was just flipping back and forth between different theological positions throughout his life. Yet, when asked why he did so, he gave an answer, and it is a very telling one. He believed Origen’s writings had a lot of good in them; the problem was how precisely one could apply Origen’s opinions to the Church’s teaching. One had to avoid his errors like one avoids the thorns of a rose. Thus, after he came to believe that Origen’s theology should be condemned, he should not be seen as saying everything in Origen’s writings were objectionable. Moreover, reading from Origen should not be seen as if he were flip-flopping in his beliefs. There is no indication that he ever took back his condemnations. In fact, when the controversy was over, he received a Latin translation of all his letters against Origen from Jerome. [vii] This suggests that Theophilus still believed they were of value for the Church, and their preservation indicated that he did not fundamentally change his mind as to what he thought was in error.
Theophilus believed that the Origenists’ greatest problem was that they had used of Hellenistic philosophy uncritically. Not only did Origen and the later Origenists not understand the theological errors they produced, they could not see the scandal they made within the Church. While rejecting Origen, Theophilus could easily accept Synesius, the Hellene par excellence, as a bishop of the Church. He would not find such activity to be in contradiction with his own condemnations of Origen. Reading and comparing Synesius’ views with Origen, one can easily see how similar the two were to each other.[viii]Yet, there was a difference. Synesius had before him a greater, more developed, understanding of Christian doctrine than was found in Origen’s day.[ix]Synesius promised that as bishop he would uphold that Christian faith, and he would do so in such a way that would not scandalize his people.[x]The question for Theophilus, therefore, was not what private opinions Synesius held, but whether or not Synesius would keep them to himself if they differed from Christian doctrine? If so, then Theophilus did not believe these private opinions should keep Synesius from the bishopric.[xi]What is more, the people of Ptolemais had asked for Synesius to be their bishop; knowing what Synesius represented, they showed in his case that they were not going to be scandalized. If scandal was what concerned Theophilus, then when there was none to be had, Theophilus had no problem. Synesius’ objections, in the words of Marrou, “raised difficulties where none existed and was making mountains out of molehills.”[xii]
Thus, we need to finally ask ourselves what we have learned from this. What exactly were Theophilus’ views concerning philosophy? We might want an easy answer and say he either supported or condemned it outright, leaving us no middle ground. Or, we might want to say, as many have, that Theophilus was inconsistent in his response. These answers are all too simplistic and in error because they fail to consider Theophilus’ pastoral role. De Vogel’s models can not offer us an answer to this question. If we were to be limited to them, we must say, as we expected, that Theophilus allowed for a critical use of philosophy within the Church, but its use was in accordance to one rule: it should not produce scandal. Theophilus also understood that those who were more intellectually motivated needed more sophisticated answers, and they too, should not be scandalized. It was not the answers which were the problem as much as how they were applied. If their application threatened Church unity, then work needed to be done. Theophilus showed this irenic side with his willingness for reconciliation with the Tall Brethren and their followers at the Council of the Oak. The long, difficult conflict had caused much sorrow, and it is quite clear that Theophilus did not always succeed in his attempts at pastoral sensitivity. He made many mistakes, and some indeed, would be easier to point out with hindsight than others. But that is the nature of prudential decisions: some turn out to be disastrous. In this way, while not belittling the cruel attitude Theophilus took to the Tall Brethren or John Chrysostom,[xiii]we should look at Theophilus with a little more charity than he is usually given. He had a tough challenge to face, and it was one that not many would have been prepared to meet as well as he had done. Raynor is right in saying, “However the sad the consequences of that dilemma, it could not be avoided; and the man who faced it deserves a least a measure of our sympathy.”[xiv]
Footnotes
[i]El Masri, Story of the Copts, 194.
[ii]Derksen, for example, reads Theophilus this way. Derksen, “The Political and Ecclesiastical Involvement of Egyptian Monks,” 94. Clark’s study was in part written to show that while the political situation was involved with the Origenist controversy, there was also a serious theological issue being addressed in it as well.
[iii] Rodney Stark suggests that conversion from one religion to another is often done through social networks, and that this was often the case for early Christians. See Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: How an Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Force in the West World in a Few Centuries (San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers, 1997), 20-1.
[iv] Raynor, “Faith of the Simpliciores,” 167.
[v]We can see this in his mediation between John of Jerusalem with Epiphanius and Jerome, or in his work with John Chrysostom reconciling Flavian with Rome.
[vi] Raynor, “Faith of the Simpliciores,” 167.
[vii] Jerome, Letter 114 (CSEL 55, 394-5).
[viii] Brown, Power and Persuasion, 138.
[ix]Origen’s writings bore the characteristic mark of being written in a time when Christian doctrine was not clearly defined. Moreover, Origen had written that he was speculating in areas where he believed the Church had not made any pronouncements, and, if there were any conflict between what he wrote and what the Church taught, he would agree with the Church. See Henri de Lubac, introduction to On First Principles (trans. G.W. Butterworth; New York: Harper and Row, 1966; repr., Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1973), x – xv.
[x]Thus, Synesius did address many theological problems in his day, and he gave a remarkably orthodox answer to them. The Arians, for example, were one among many he was willing to challenge. “As a bishop Synesius was much occupied with doctrinal and political problems of the church. He warned his see against the heresies of the Eunomians, an Arian sect.” Roos, Synesius of Cyrene: A Study in His Personality, 4.
[xi]Theophilus knew that Synesius thought philosophy was geared only towards the elites and its higher doctrines should not be preached to the uninitiated crowd. Syneius, in fact, had reprimanded one of his friends for discussing philosophy too publically, Synesius, Epistle 142 (PG 66:1535B -1537B). As such, Theophilus could trust that Synesius’ philosophical beliefs were not going to create a difficultly for the Church.
[xii]Marrou, “Synesius of Cyrene and Alexandrian Platonism,” 149.
[xiii]We must remember, in the time we are speaking about, the ways bishops approached pastoral decisions, and the kinds of force they were willing to use in order to make sure their decisions were followed, are quite different from our day. While we can judge Theophilus as being cruel from our own standards, we must remember the historical situation and realize that in his own day and age, things were quite different. What he did was more normative to the time and place he lived in, and if he didn’t act with force, his authority would have been even more questioned, and his pastoral advice even less heeded.
[xiv] Raynor, “Faith of the Simpliciores,” 169.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In