Thank you for this careful response, and thank you also for the very high praise, for which I am grateful, considering how foreign I am to the work of Bulgakov. I noticed two critical points. The first concerns the issue of analogy, specifically the analogia entis. Let me assure you that I did not mean those statements to be invested with so much meaning. You’re certainly right to point out the problems with an oversimplified conception of the analogia entis. But the question is whether my statements in the essay are warranted. And on that point I think they are.

Let me explain. First, your statement that Thomistic analogia “is more Greek than Latin, based as it is on the Greek doctrines of participation and Biblical Creation,” is highly misleading. Appealing to positions that were established prior to the division between East and West hardly accounts for a doctrine being “more Greek than Latin”!

Second, the fact of the matter is that the doctrine of analogy wasn’t really developed into the form we associate with the word today until the period of High Scholasticism. Certainly, that does not mean the doctrine has a single, fixed meaning. But it does mean that we can refer to the “scholastic doctrine of analogy” without committing serious theological violence. Scholars have to be free to make these kinds of statements for the simple reason that it is unreasonable to expect people to offer a detailed history of analogy every time the concept is raised. And I would have expected a little more charity on this point, since it was clear that I was merely making a suggestion rather than an argument. Moreover, this is a blog post, not a published essay.

Third, and most importantly, Bulgakov is thoroughly opposed to Latin and scholastic ideas. His rhetoric against scholasticism and Latin theology is apparent throughout the text I read. He is also opposed, I assume for related reasons, to speaking about philosophical ontology. As an Eastern theologian shaped by mystical and sophiological frameworks, the idea of an analogy of being would be utterly foreign to Bulgakov. That’s not to say he couldn’t appropriate the doctrine, but there really is nothing like it in the texts that I read. Maybe he has something like it elsewhere. The key seems to be that Bulgakov knows of no philosophical concept of “being.” What he knows is divine life and the “Divine Sophia.” He knows of a Divine Sophia which grounds and includes the creaturely Sophia. While I think one could plausibly speak of a participation of being, maybe even an analogy of being, the fact remains that Bulgakov does not prefer this kind of theological language. I would even suggest that the very notion of a doctrine of analogy is foreign to Bulgakov. These are all concepts that have thrived in the soil of Western, post-scholastic theology, not in the more doxological, mystical, sophiological soil of modern Eastern theology.

Well, it seems that I have explained my comments too much. All I really meant to say is that Bulgakov offers resources for an Eastern parallel to the analogy of being that we find most prominent in the Western tradition. Bulgakov nowhere elaborates upon such clues, at least as far as I can tell. But he certainly offers fertile ground for further reflection.

The second criticism is that I have approached Bulgakov from too Barthian a position, or perhaps that I have not appreciated Bulgakov’s unique form of christocentrism. Or perhaps those are two sides of the same point. In any case, all I can say is that I am in basic agreement with Barth. Honestly, I do not have any interest in the “mystical approach of the East,” nor would I ever want to ascend “beyond the limits and constraints of the material, historical, order.” For me, it is precisely in the material and historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth that we find God. The history of Jesus Christ is what determines the being of God and the being of humanity. Bulgakov’s mystical-sophiological approach leads him to affirm panentheism (or a “pious pantheism”), and that is precisely where I do not want to go. I am interested, perhaps exclusively so, in a concrete, historical event that existentially encounters us in the power of the Holy Spirit. Yes, this is Barthian, but I also happen to think it’s right. On this issue, I would hold up Barth’s exegesis (or even my exegesis) over against Bulgakov’s, who does very little biblical interpretation in his work on pneumatology. I found quite a bit of it rather speculative in nature, and that’s precisely what I want to excise from theology. Call me a Western Protestant, but at least I admitted that up front! :)

Let me express again my gratitude to you for your very kind and thoughtful response. I heartily welcome the dialogue. Let me also point you to the “extended edition” of my essay over at my blog. You’ll find a much longer exposition of Bulgakov’s thought and more critical comments. I suspect you’ll appreciate the former (much of which I had to cut for the conference edition) but have more issues with the latter. And that’s to be expected. I welcome your feedback about the longer version at my blog. Thanks again for the charitable dialogue.