Contending winsomely

In the very early 370s, an elder by the name of Palladius moved from the church in Caesarea in Cappadocia to live at a monastic community located on the Mount of Olives.

Among the members of this community was a certain Innocent, who was well known to Athanasius (c.299–373), the bishop of Alexandria, a legend in his own time due to his ardent defence of the full deity of Christ. It may well have been this contact with Innocent that prompted Palladius to write to the Egyptian pastor-theologian about a concern that vexed him. It had to do with the bishop of his home church, namely, Basil of Caesarea (c.330–379), as well-known today as Athanasius.

Critiquing Basil of Caesarea

Palladius informed Athanasius that some of the monks at Caesarea were troubled by Basil’s stance in relation to the deity of the Holy Spirit and were openly critical of their bishop. The 360s and 370s was a time of significant theological confusion among the churches in the Eastern Roman Empire. Basil once likened it to a naval battle being fought at night in the midst of a storm and with the sea enveloped by a thick fog that made it all but impossible to distinguish friend from foe.

Basil himself was convinced that the Holy Spirit shared the very being of God to the full, but there were some, like his episcopal friend Eustathius of Sebaste (c.300–c.377), who were hesitant to affirm the Spirit’s deity since they could not find the epithet ‘God’ explicitly ascribed to the Spirit in holy Scripture. Basil, therefore, argued that if people like his friend Eustathius were willing to confess that the Spirit is not a creature, they should be received into communion.

A number of the Caesarean monks were not happy, however, with Basil’s ‘reserve’, which they took to be the approach of a compromiser and even one who was a denier of the Faith. Evidently, they were not going to be pleased with him unless he publicly declared that the eternal Spirit is none other than God.

Athanasius’ response

The Alexandrian bishop was shocked that the Caesarean monks were voicing such opposition to Basil, whom he personally regarded as ‘a glory to the church’. First off, they too needed to glorify God for having given the churches in Cappadocia such a bishop.

Then, Athanasius told Palladius that he had nary a qualm about Basil’s orthodoxy and he consequently encouraged the Caesareans – and Palladius – to be obedient to their bishop. To Athanasius’ mind, Basil’s dogmatic position, as well as his method of teaching, was best described in the words of 1 Corinthians 9:22 – to those weak in faith Basil had become weak in order that he might gain their support for his position.

Basil’s model of leadership

This letter of Athanasius, transmitted in his written corpus as Letter 63, is quite remarkable. First of all, it reveals a gentle side to the agèd theological warrior not normally associated with one whom history later described as Athanasius contra mundum. The Alexandrian divine rightly realised that there were different ways to approach what was the critical issue of his day, namely, defending the deity of the Spirit.

Athanasius’ letter also contains a genuine insight into Basil’s style of leadership, namely, the latter’s concern for ‘weaker’ brethren and his desire to win them to orthodoxy. Athanasius likened it to Paul’s example in 1 Corinthians 9. But he might well have cited what Paul said at the close of his life to Timothy with regard to how to teach in the midst of theological controversy: ‘The Lord’s servant must not quarrel, but must be gentle to everyone, able to teach, and patient, instructing his opponents with gentleness.’