Bulgakov’s sophiology and the neopatristic synthesis

Abstract In 1922, many representatives of the Russian Intelligentsia, including many philosophers, were exiled from the young soviet state. Many left with the so-called Philosophy Steamer (Chamberlain in The philosophy steamer: Lenin and the exile of the intelligensia (2006) Atlantic Books). The exiled philosophers tried to go on with their previous professional lives in cities as Prague, Berlin and Paris. The St. Serge Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, founded by, among others, Sergei Bulgakov (1871–1944), became the new center of Russian religious philosophy and theology in Europe. Soon, however, the community of immigrant Russian religious philosophers and theologians was divided by conflicting opinions, and fell apart in various brotherhoods and movements. An important conflict was the so-called Sophia controversy: the Brotherhood of St. Photius , which included Vladimir Lossky (1903–1958), as well as the famous spokesman of the Neopatristic Synthesis, Fr. Georges Florovsky (1893–1979), attacked the Brotherhood of St. Sophia , which included the above mentioned Bulgakov. His Sophiology, or study of Sophia, Divine Wisdom, was accused of heresy on the instigation of Florovsky and Lossky. From this Sophia controversy, the Neopatristic Synthesis emerged as the dominant school of Russian Orthodox Theology, whereas Sophiology fell practically into oblivion. This article will attempt to answer the question whether there is still room for a re-valuation of the sophiological stance in Orthodox theology through a survey of recent literature on the subject. The article will conclude the affirmative: namely, that the controversy is shown to be the result of a conflict between generations and the necessity to empower their Orthodox identity in emigration, rather than the result of intrinsic philosophical or theological differences.