Page 53 - AECA.org.uk ¦ Koinonia 67

either in his writings, so we cannot tell to what extent Men was influenced by
Bulgakov in this respect, or whether he developed these ideas independently.

Summary

We have seen that Men is generally positive in his assessment of Teilhard’s
explanation of creation in evolutionary terms, with the exception of his
dependence on ‘inner’ psychic energy, in which Men sees pantheistic
tendencies, and his inadequate distinction between the biosphere and
noosphere. Men, however, recognises the limitations of Teilhard’s system in
explaining the problem of evil. Concerning this theological problem, he draws
more from the Russian thinkers, Solovyov, Berdyaev, and Bulgakov. In common
with all three, Men refers to a ‘World Soul’ in his writings, but for Men this is
not a pre-temporal idealised world. For Men, the Fall did not take place in a
metaphysical reality inaccessible to our natural world, and the natural world
was not created as part of it (see Part 2). The ‘Manichaean’ tendencies of
Solovyov, Berdyaev and Bulgakov to see a fallenness in the natural world from
the very beginning are therefore rejected by Men. He does not locate freedom
in an ontological space independent of God as does Berdyaev, but he finds
Berdyaev’s proposal that evil and the freedom that makes it possible are
absolutely inaccessible to rationality appealing. Freedom is a significant part of
Men’s answer to the problem of evil. Although he does not comment on
Bulgakov’s demonology, we have noted that the Angelic Fall is a significant
aspect of Men’s understanding of the presence of evil in the world.

51