Page 383 - Orthodoxy Zizioulas

H O W M U S T T H E O L O G Y S P E A K T O D AY
came the possession of experts, detached from the existential
concerns of the faithful.
In the absence of a living theological word, the Church
sought to fill the void through practical means. Preaching,
having lost its dogmatic foundation, shifted toward moral
exhortation. The fervor of missionary activity and the expan-
sion of philanthropic work gave the impression of renewed
vitality. Yet the theological word itself was no longer at the
center. Increasingly, the Church addressed the world by taking
positions on social and ethical issues—bioethics, injustice,
human suffering, even national concerns. While not without
value, such engagement often placed the Church within the
sphere of political discourse, and her word came to be per-
ceived as ideological or reactive.
If the theological word is to regain its power, it must first
return to its source: the dogma of the Church. But dogma
must not be presented as a set of abstract propositions. It must
be interpreted so that its soteriological depth becomes mani-
fest. Dogmas are not ideas to be accepted or rejected; they are
truths to be lived. The faith of the Church concerns life and
death.
For too long, we have spoken of Christ in a manner that
risks reducing Him to a concept or a slogan. Yet Christ is not
a name to be invoked, nor an ethical model to be imitated. He
is the God-man who answers the ultimate questions of human
existence—death, freedom, love, and communion. Only when
theology addresses these questions does it recover its voice as
a word that speaks to life.
At the same time, the theological word must once again
become ecclesial—rooted in the Eucharist and expressed in
the life of the liturgical community. The Church cannot be
reduced to an institution or association, nor the Eucharist to
383