A Study of Gregory Palamas

Meyendorff, John. A Study  of Gregory Palamas. Leighton Buzzard (UK): Faith Press, 1974.

This is yet another book I’ve read  in retirement. I’ve had it for a long time without reading it. But I’ve always wanted to be one of those people who can confidently rattle off that they’ve read it. Now I am one of those people.

This is Fr. John’s main book. He wrote many others, of course, but none of them had the impact of this one. It was originally published in French in 1959 as  Introduction a l’étude de Gregoire Palamas. It was translated from French by George  Lawrence, and published in English in 1974. It was the first book to show that the theology of Gregory Palamas was very  important. Even though most of the residents of present-day Thessaloniki seem not know who he was, even  though his body rests in that city’s cathedral, and even though he is commemorated in the entire Orthodox world on every second Sunday of Lent.

This book represents the resurrection of Palamas’s theology  that happened in the mid-twentieth century. It is an academic book, to be sure, but a bit more readable than most books that bear that appellation, and thus worth a read by anyone who wants to better understand what Palamism was all about, without going through the hassle of reading the texts he actually wrote, like his Triads in Defense of the Holy Hesycasts or his sermons. Unless you’re an academic at the level where you must read the original texts.

I suspect that this book is Fr. John’s dissertation, presented  to St. Sergius Institute in partial fulfillment for the degree they gave him. Probably the equivalent of a Ph.D. St. Sergius Institute was founded in 1925 by Russian emigres (among them, Fr. Bulgakov). It always maintained close ties to Sorbonne. Its lectures were in French. Some of  the degrees it granted were joint. From St. Sergius Institute and the University of Paris. Fr. John and Fr. Alexander Schmemman both studied there (more about that later) in the school’s glory days. Though it still exists, and  occupies a familiar place on the rue de crimée in Paris, its glory days are long over now. There are  no longer any important books coming from St. Sergius; no brilliant students.

This book’s first part is basically a biography of Palamas, and he did live an eventful and busy life. He came from an aristocratic and academic background. He was a monk of the Great Lavra on Mt. Athos. He was taken prisoner by the Turks, and spent a few years in their prisons. He became Thessaloniki’s bishop. And he dialogued theologically both with Akyndinos and Barlaam of Calabria. He died about 150 years before the huge cultural changes that took place in Thessaloniki, when the Jews, expelled from Spain in 1492 by Isabella of Castile, found refuge there, making Thessaloniki instantly the biggest Jewish city in the world. The city he knew was still mostly Greek, like it is today.

The second part is a sort of presentation of Palamism. No big surprises here, though if you want Palamism condensed, this is likely where you should go.  Basically, he provided the theological justification for the intimacy with God the hesychasts reported, making his famous distinction between essence and energies. The essence is that part of God we cannot know, or express with our limited language. The energies of God are that portion God revealed to us. But the fun part is, these energies are themselves God. So the Hesychasts report of intimacy with God was true! And there was even theological justification for it!

What surprised me was that Palamas took monasticism to be a prophetic calling. It’s almost like the monks prayed without ceasing so we wouldn’t have to. I liked this. It’s almost like the monks are the the real Christian remnant. While the rest of us do the important work of supporting them. Reminds me a bit of Theravada Buddhism, though the Orthodox theologians would likely find a way to deny it.

The other surprise is Palamas’s feeling that the monks themselves did not need to know the theology behind what they did. If they’d just pray, there’d be no need for them to do the rest. I liked this too. Not knowing the theology behind what you did was OK. Someone smart would take care of it for you.

Back to Fr. Schmemman and Fr. Meyendorff in their Paris days. Both were aristocrats. When you were a bright boy back then, you became an academic (or if you were a woman, you married one. Or you could be dumb and beautiful, that also worked). And these two intelligent, aristocratic boys, interested in the theology of the church they grew up in, quite naturally went to St. Sergius. 

Fr. John was the more brilliant academic of the two. But Fr. Alexander had a special gift. I suspect that he simply woke up to the deepest kind of reality. That affected his sermons, his liturgical serving, and everything else he did. Folks thought that that was what Orthodox Christianity was. Many people naturally wanted do do whatever he’d done.  Upon his arrival in America, Fr. Alexander got rid of the bothersome Fr. Florovsky,  a progressive theologian when that wasn’t wanted. And he eventually brought over the brilliant academic theologian, Fr. John Meyendorff, who didn’t present such a problem. St. Vladimir’s Seminary and the OCA were all ready to go.

I don’t think that either of them (Schmemman or Meyendorff) knew that they were the big fish in a small pond that they were. And they didn’t know what big fish they were and how small the pond. They had both grown up in the tiny Russian community in Paris, speaking Russian and French. They were both smart. Because they lived in such a small community, they thought they were more important than they really were. St. Vladimir’s was not that much different. From their point of view, America was Orthodox.

And they were both incredibly naive. They came to America knowing little about American religion, and didn’t bother to find out. They were especially ignorant of  the evangelical heresy that is now storming the Church. They imagined them to be innocent, misguided  protestants. As anyone who knows them at all will tell you, they are not innocent.

Thus, they are responsible for the end of the Church in America, through their welcoming in those evangelicals, whom they didn’t understand, then leaving it to the next generation (they both died young) to reconcile them, while turning a blind eye to the folks already in the church in need of reconciliation. The OCA becomes the religious component of movement conservatism, and an evangelical sect.