Abstract
The relationship between the Sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov and the neo-patristic movement within Orthodoxy is well-known. The neo-patristic synthesis won the day, and it is the dominant theological tradition within Orthodoxy. It is time for a serious reappraisal of Bulgakov’s theology by the Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christian theologians because Christian theology is faced with a looming bioethical issue, cybernetic enhancement technology. This technology raises a cybernetic-ethical version of the Sorites paradox that leads us to inquire at “what point do technological enhancements take away or replace our humanity?” and “are cyborg enhancements ethical from an Orthodox Christian perspective?” Bulgakov’s Sophiology may provide important tools for assessing cyborg enhancements and answering these questions. This paper argues that Bulgakov’s Sophiology, particularly his theology of human creativity and belief that we can and should anticipate the spiritual bodies that we will have in the general resurrection, offers a framework for assessing the morality of technological alterations to our present bodily existence from an Orthodox perspective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See Sauvé (2010, p. 60). Oliver Clement, a close friend and student of Lossky, in his “Notice biographique” indicates that Lossky planned positive work on Bulgakov’s work. Gallaher writes, “Lossky decided at a certain point that the risk of Sophiology had been overcome. He could with all intellectual honesty begin to emphasize Bulgakov’s ‘positive intuitions’ or ideas and begin writing a new, more positive study of his Sophiology” (Gallaher 2013, pp. 278–298, 298).
The dichotomy of therapeutic versus non-therapeutic enhancements, once prevalent among prominent bioethicists, has recently faced criticisms due to the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two. Despite this ongoing debate, this framework remains relevant and useful for illustrating what many scholars and Christian leaders consider ethically acceptable in the context of therapeutic enhancements, as opposed to the more controversial non-therapeutic enhancements. Thus, in this essay, we will employ this framework to clarify and categorize the types of enhancements under discussion.
Bulgakov’s Sophiology develops over the course of the last forty years of his life. His earlier sophiological works were indebted to various German Idealists, Ana Schmidt, Jacob Böhme, and, most importantly, Vladimir Soloviev and Pavel Florensky. However, his theological works written during the last two decades of his life are committed to using his sophiological insights to express Orthodox theology and worship to the modern world. In this later period, Bulgakov rejects many of his former influences. For example, in his Tragedy of Philosophy (1927) Bulgakov is critical of German Idealists, and he attempts to reimagine the triune basis of reality (Bulgakov 2020). Moreover, throughout his theological works Bulgakov is charitable but nevertheless critical of Soloviev. In his The Lamb of God, Bulgakov writes that Soloviev never develops his theology of Sophia but “instead obscured and distorted them with gnostic conceptions” (Bulgakov 2008, note 18, p. 7011).
Today Bulgakov’s Sophiology is not without criticism. Although the current trend among anglophone authors is a positive reception of Bulgakov, his Sophiology remains theologically suspect, especially his works written before his Paris period. For a good overview of some of the reservations, please see Richard May’s “Between God and the world: a critical appraisal of the Sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov” in Scottish Journal of Theology. However, May is somewhat uncharitable in his analysis of Bulgakov and fails to consider the development in Bulgakov’s thought as well as Bulgakov’s Sophia: The Wisdom of God: An Outline of Sophiology, where Bulgakov writes more clearly on the relationship of divine and creaturely Sophia to God’s nature and the creation. May mentions this text only once in a footnote.
For a succinct overview of how Bulgakov understands Godmanhood, see Bulgakov’s article “The Lamb of God: On Divine-Humanity, Part 1” that is published as an appendix in Boris Jakim’s translation of Bulgakov’s book, The Lamb of God. Note that the term Bogochelovechestvo used by Bulgakov has multiple translations in English translations of Bulgakov’s works and secondary literature including: Godmanhood, Godhumanhood, and Divine-Humanity. Jakim uses the translation “Divine-Humanity.”
Bulgakov’s The Tragedy of Philosophy (Philosophy & Dogma) provides a sustained polemic against the German idealist, Immanuel Kant, who attempted to abstract the human I (the spirit) from the body or the givenness of reality that resulted in heretical solipsism (Bulgakov 2020, p. 41).
Bulgakov vacillates between tripartite and bipartite conceptions of the human person; however, he prefers a tripartite account. His vacillation can be explained, because the spirit and the soul are a composite entity. In one sense, they are the same as the center of the hypostatic spiritual life of the person. However, they are different insofar as the spirit is the conscious center of the person, whereas the soul is how the spirit gives life to the body. The soul is the “active principle of the body” and “receptacle of the spirit” (Bulgakov 2002, Location 378). It is the life of the spirit and after death remains with the spirit (Bulgakov 2011, Location 1298). “Death separates the soul, quickened by the spirit and quickening the body, from the body, which becomes a corpse and dust… man is transformed from an incarnate being into a fleshless spirit” (Bulgakov 2011, Locations 1296–1297). Yet the soul is the means through which the body will be glorified and become a spiritual body.
Bulgakov locates consciousness, the will, and the mind within the spirit.
Jesus’s resurrection provides a benchmark for understanding the capabilities of a spiritual body. After his resurrection, Jesus’s body looked like a “normal” physical body but was not constrained by space or time (e.g., Jesus walks through a closed door, John 20:19). Moreover, the body can change shape: on the road to Emmaus, Jesus’s changes his appearance so that he is able to walk with his disciples, who do not suspect who is Jesus until he reveals himself when he breaks bread (Luke 24:13–32). Yet his body was glorified (See Acts 8:1–9) and consumed with a blinding light. The spiritual body can fully meet the needs of the spirit, which means that the spirit is no longer constrained by physical space.
Holy relics hold eschatological significance as they foreshadow the eventual resurrection of the body and the extraordinary powers associated with that transformative event. Remarkably, certain saints, such as St. Seraphim of Sarov, exemplify an exceptionally strong connection between the spirit and the soul-body composite to the extent that even the saint’s relics is accompanied by miraculous occurrences.
It is noteworthy that in situations where there is no biological body left, based on my three-fold distinction of cybernetic enhancements, the enhancement is no longer classified as a radical enhancement but rather as a transhuman enhancement. In light of my interpretation of Bulgakov and the Christian tradition, the only aspect of an individual’s humanity that remains in such instances is a copy of their brain functions. I am thinking about the post-humans envisioned by Ray Kurzweil. The evaluation of transhuman enhancements necessitates a distinct discourse and an analysis of Bulgakov’s critique of Nicholai Fedorov’s theology of the technological resurrection. Additional information on this topic is available in my upcoming publication, entitled “A Sophiology of Cybernetic Ethics” (Lexington Books, 2025).
References
Behr, John. Passing beyond the neo-patristic synthesis. https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2018/06/14/passing-beyond-the-neo-patristic-synthesis/.
Bulgakov, Sergius. 2002. The bride of the lamb. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Trans. Boris Jakim.
Bulgakov, Sergius. 2003. “Dogma and dogmatic theology” [1937]. In Tradition alive: On the church and the christian life in our time/readings from the eastern church, ed. Michael Plekon, 67–80, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bulgakov, Sergius. 2008. The lamb of God. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Trans. Boris Jakim. Kindle e-book.
Bulgakov, Sergius. 2011. Relics and miracles: Two theological essays. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Trans. Boris Jakim. Kindle e-book.
Bulgakov, Sergius. 2012. Icons and the name of God. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Trans. Boris Jakim. Kindle e-book.
Bulgakov, Sergius. 2020. The tradgey of philosophy (philosophy and dogma). Brooklyn: Angelico Press. Trans. Stephen Churchyard.
Delaney, James. 2021. Well-being and human enhancement: A natural law perspective. In Romanell center workshop, saturday, September 11, 2021.
Deschamps, Marc. Elon Musk reveals uncomfortable Cyberpunk 2077 realization. comicbook.com/gaming/news/elon-musk-cyberpunk-2077-uncomfortable-realization.
Gallaher, Brandon. 2013. The ‘sophiological’ origins of Vladimir Lossky’s apophatism. Scottish Journal of Theology 66(3): 278–298. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930613000136.
Gallaher, Brandon. 2019. Godmanhood vs mangodhood: An eastern Orthodox response to transhumanism. Studies in Christian Ethics 32(2): 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0953946819827136.
Gillett, G. 2006. Cyborgs and moral identity. Journal of Medical Ethics 32(2): 79–83. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563338/.
Glieg, Ann. 2015. Buddhism, technology, and new social media. In Asian religions, technology, and sciences, ed. Istvan Keul, 186–203. New York: Routledge.
Lemna, Keith. 2014. Louis Bouyer and Alfred North Whitehead: Dialogue in trinitarian cosmology. Gregorianum 95(4): 749–773.
Morgan, Brandon L. 2018. Reimaging aesthetics: Sergius Bulgakov on seeing the wisdom of creation. Irish Theological Quarterly 83(2): 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021140018757885.
Nichols, Aidan. 2005. Wisdom from above: A primer in the theology of father Sergei Bulgakov. Herefordshire: Gracewing.
Sauvé, Joseph Ross. 2010. Georges V. Florovsky and Vladimir N. Lossky: An exploration, comparison, and demonstration of their unique approaches to the neopatristic synthesis. Ph.D. diss., Durham University.
van Kessel, J. 2018. Sergei Bulgakov’s Sophiology as the integration of sociology, philosophy, and theology. In The future of creation order, eds. Gerrit Glas and Jeroen de Ridder. Vol. 1. Berlin: Springer.
Williams, Rowan. 2015. Creation, creativity, and creatureliness: The wisdom of finite existence. In Being-in-creation: Human responsibility in an endangered world, eds. Brian Treanor, Bruce Ellis Benson, and Norman Wirzba. New York: Fordham University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Sisto, W.N. Towards the future of Orthodox theology: Bulgakov and cyborg enhancement technology. Stud East Eur Thought (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-023-09579-1
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-023-09579-1