THE LAND OF UNLIKENESS

by Henry Karlson
The Catholic University of America, Washington DC

When discussing Bulgavkov’s Sophiology, it is always important to note the reaction, and condemnation, given to it by members of the Orthodox Church. Obviously we must note, as Aron Dunlap does, that the condemnation was not universal; indeed, its value has been and continues to be questioned by the Orthodox themselves. For those who look positively towards Bulgakov, they will be the first to note the non-binding nature of the condemnation, and how they do not fit what Bulgakov taught. For those who look down upon Sophiology, the condemnation, while unofficial, is seen as normative and cannot be summarily dismissed.

As Aron rightfully points out, for Bulgakov, the belief that Sophia as a “fourth person” of the Trinity is erroneous. But why do people claim Sophia represents a “fourth person” for Bulgakov? To answer that question we must look at earlier forms of Russia Sophiology, especially that which is associated with Vladimir Solovyov. In Russia and the Universal Church, Solovyov presents a personified Sophia; to follow a Hindu analogy, Sophia in Solovyov is like God’s Shakti, the personified essence and energy of God. And for Solovyov, this Sophia, the created other of God, is created directly from the essence of God, and becomes the foundation for the world. Sophia is one with the worldly system, propped herself above God, and became fallen. The Gnostic connections with Solovyov’s Sophiology were evident by all, both by those who supported and those who opposed him. How could it not be when Vladimir Solovyov mentioned in his own writings how he learned about Sophia in part through his study of Gnostic treatises? Because Solovyov’s Sophiology was a major influence upon Bulgakov, especially in the early formation of his own Sophiology, it is understandable that his critics would use Solovyov’s Sophiology as a hermeneutical tool to interpret Bulgakov’s dogmatic writings – and, interpreted in that context, it is easy to see how Bulgakov would appear to fall into erroneous, if not heretical, speculations (especially if one looks at his earlier, cruder, vaguer forms of Sophiology). Bulgakov, like Solovyov, would be seen as a Gnostic following the emanation theories of the Gnostics; therefore, he must have believed Sophia to be personified and even fallen.

Aron does a good job describing what Bulgakov’s Sophiology is about, and can help us begin to see why it should not be seen as a reproduction of Solovyov’s Sophiology, even if it is influenced by it. The distinction between Uncreated and Created Sophia relate, in part, to the fact that humanity is created in the image of God. God’s essence, Sophia, love, wisdom, can never be said to be fallen, and is personified only through and by the members of the Holy Trinity. It’s image, created Sophia, is given hypostization through human persons, and it is these persons who are to be said to be fallen. And because an image is always contained within the one whose image is being imagined, it is for this reason one can understand with Bulgakov (via Aron’s description) that creaturely Sophia has its basis and foundation in eternity, even if it is, as the title suggests, created.