Pavel Gavrilyuk

Modern theological engagements of deification have undergone two major paradigm shifts. First, the study of deification shifted from the periphery of theological discourse to its center. For Adolf von Harnack, deification was a pagan import that fatally corrupted and distorted the Gospel message of salvation. In response, the positive retrieval of the concept of deification belongs to the early years of the twentieth century. By the 1910s, in Russian religious thought, and, by the 1930s, in much Roman Catholic theology, deification became a magnet concept attracting much attention. The second important shift has to do with how deification is characterized. Recent studies question the exclusively “Eastern” character of deification and draw attention to the engagements of this theme in Latin patristic and later Western Christian sources. Reassessing the evidence for these two major shifts, the Handbook comprehensively explores the points of convergence and difference on the constitutive elements of deification in different traditions, and offers a foundation for ecumenical and interreligious dialogues. The Handbook’s Part I analyzes the cultural and scriptural roots of deification; Part II explores the most significant historical contributions to the understanding of deification in the early, medieval, and modern periods; and Part III develops systematic connections.

Natural theology attempts to show that there is a God, and what he is like, on the basis of evidence which both theists and atheists can recognize as obviously true, such as the existence of the universal laws of nature. Many recent Eastern Orthodox thinkers have questioned the cogency and religious value of natural theology. This volume contains essays by David Bradshaw, Richard Cross, Alexey Fokin, Paul Gavrilyuk, Travis Dumsday, Dionysios Skliris, and Richard Swinburne, on the history of natural theology in the Orthodox Church and its contemporary relevance.

Fr. Georges Florovsky (1893-1979) and Fr. Alexander Schmemann (1921-1983) profoundly shaped twentieth-century Orthodox theology. Their correspondence - edited and translated for the first time - provides a unique window into their theological visions, leadership styles, and interactions with their contemporaries. Most of the letters were written when Florovsky had recently moved to the US to lead and organize the fledgling St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York while Schmemann was still teaching at the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. The correspondence also reveals the circumstances of Schmemann's move to the US at the request of Florovsky and offers glimpses into their subsequent collaboration at St' Vladimir's Seminary until their tragic rift in 1955. Reminiscent of the style of Schmemann's journals, the letters lay out the challenges of leadership with brutal honesty and good humor, bearing an eloquent testimony to their authors' dedication to launching a new era of seminary education.