Page 226 - Orthodoxy Zizioulas

O r t h o d o x y
served chiefly in monastic circles during the centuries of Ot-
toman domination.
At the same time, Orthodox encounters with the West cre-
ated a new and decisive situation. Medieval Scholasticism at-
tracted many Orthodox minds, and in the absence of a living,
creative engagement with the Fathers, patristic texts came to
function merely as literary sources in debates already framed
by Western concerns. Orthodox theology thus accepted the
problematic of Western theology without sufficiently ques-
tioning it. When the Reformation divided the West, Orthodox
theologians responded by producing their own “confessions,”
attempting to define an Orthodox position between Roman
Catholicism and Protestantism, often borrowing arguments
from one side against the other. Some authors were heavily
influenced by Roman Catholic Scholasticism (e.g., Peter
Moghila and Dositheos of Jerusalem), while others were
shaped by Protestant theology (e.g., Cyril Lucaris, Metro-
phanes Kritopoulos, etc.). Common to all, however, was the
responsibility for initiating a “confessionalism” within Ortho-
dox theology that marked Orthodoxy for centuries.
This confessionalism entered deeply into Orthodox theo-
logical education. The Orthodox allowed themselves to learn
so much from Protestant and Roman Catholic models that
almost the entire system of theological education throughout
the Orthodox world became a copy of non-Orthodox institu-
tions. Theological faculties in Athens, Russia, and elsewhere
were modeled after Western universities, and theology came
to be treated as an academic specialization divided into
branches—dogmatic, exegetical, historical, moral—according
to imported schemes. In this way a rift emerged between the-
ology and the life of the Church: the Church became the place
of worship and preaching, while theology was increasingly
226