Page 240 - Orthodoxy Zizioulas

O r t h o d o x y
Within this framework emerges a significant contribution
to Christian gnoseology. Knowledge is no longer centered in
the intellect, but in the experience of personal encounter. God
is not simply apprehended but “seen.” The “vision of God”
becomes once again essential, though it must be carefully in-
tegrated into the wider theological context.
Here, however, further challenges arise. One is the danger
of an overly “aesthetic” approach, which risks returning to
Platonism. This tendency can be observed, for example, in the
works of Pavel Evdokimov and, in a different way, in Christos
Yannaras. The concept of the “icon,” though profoundly im-
portant, may lead to an uncritical emphasis on “beauty” as if
it were self-evident in gnoseology.
Another danger is the reintroduction of individualism
through the notion of “vision” or even “personal encounter,”
thereby weakening the connection between gnoseology and
ecclesiology. For this reason, Orthodox theology must situate
the knowledge of God within the life of the Church.
The concept of the icon is inherently relational and finds its
full meaning only within communion. To “know God” is not
the result of individual effort alone, but an ecclesial event in
which knowledge coincides with love. This leads naturally to
the question of anthropology, particularly the notion of the
person.
Modern Orthodox theology has pursued this path espe-
cially through the work of Christos Yannaras, who has drawn
on existentialist philosophy, particularly Martin Heidegger, in
order to articulate the personalist thought of the Fathers.
Whether Heidegger can truly serve this purpose remains an
open question. While his departure from classical Western
thought is significant, his usefulness for Orthodox theology
must be approached with caution.
240