Download Institute for Ecumenical Studies, Ukarinian Catholic University

Institute for Ecumenical Studies, Ukrainian Catholic University, Second conference:
“Radical orthodoxy: a Christian answer to Post-Modern Culture”
"Living Tradition--Social theory working with theology: the case of Fr Sergius
Bulgakov."
by Michael Plekon
Humanity is running out of breath and losing its strength in this hopeless
conflict between the egocentricity of individualism and the sadism of
communism, between the soulnessness of statism and the snarlings of
racism. But the Church has thus far had no answer to give; under the
pressure of threatened persecution, it has settled for carrying on as one
tolerated or licensed state institution among others—or it has endured, in
the communist world, a truly bestial persecution at the hands of the Beast
of pagan polity. Yet it is only the Church that possesses the principle of
true social order, in which the personal and the collective, freedom and
social service can be given equal weight and unified harmoniously. It is
itself this very principle—living sobornost. That is also the dogmatic
foundation of an ecclesial polity. But to this end there must be an upsurge
of fresh inspiration in the members of the Church themselves, a spring of
living water which satisfies the thirst of contemporary humanity, for the
sake of a new relationship among nations, a new mission to the darkness
of social paganism, for the awakening of a new spirit. This is not the
misplaced utopianism of a “rose-tinted” Christianity that consigns the
tragic character of history, with its necessary schism between good and
evil, to oblivion, believing that before the ultimate separation the forces of
good are bound to become fully manifest.1
Thus did Fr. Sergius Bulgakov--himself formerly a professor of political economy, a
Marxist, member of the second Duma become theologian and priest--describe the
situation of the Church and the world in the turbulent 1930s. Despite his break with
Marxist thought and his ruthless criticism of both the Bolsheviks and Fascists, Bulgakov
nevertheless remained radical in his assessment both of the challenges of the early 20th
century as well as the crucial role of the Church in meeting these. The title of the journal
in which this essay, “The Soul of Socialism” was published was Novyi grad, “the new
city,” and it aptly summarizes his stance. Far from simply condemning the evils of
modernity, he rather saw in them numerous openings for the Church and the
transformaing work of the Spirit. As Rowan Williams observes, it was but one of a
number of essays in which Bulgakov addressed the social situation, teachings and action
of the Church.
A few years later he joined with a group of likeminded émigré intellectuals in an
anthology titled Zhivoe predanie-- “living tradition,” subtitled “Orthodoxy in the modern
“The Soul of Socialism,” in Rowan Williams, Sergii Bulgakov: Towards a Russian Political Theology,
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999, 264.”Dusha sotsializma” originally was published in the journal Novyi grad,
in 1932 & 1933
1
2
world.” (pravoslavie v sovremennosti) 2 Not unlike an earlier anthology published before
the Revolution—Vekhi (Signposts), it was a manifesto of sorts, not a statement of
principles or demands but rather a collection of essays which revealed a common
perspective. This point of view was openness to the modern world, a willingness to
dialogue with the cultures, societies and churches of the West. Theirs was never a
submission to modernity but the realization, as George Fedotov put it, that like countless
Christian thinkers before them, they had to use the language of the modern world and
express the Gospel as citizens of it.3 To be sure, they had harsh words of criticism for
modernity’s ills—the brutality of unbridled capitalism as well as totalitarian state
socialism and fascism. They embraced the world as God’s creation while recognizing
always its need for redemption and transformation.
In his prophetic style, Nicolas Berdiaev attacked the bourgeois domestication of
Christianity. Bulgakov himself argued for the dynamic nature of theology. Nicolas
Afanasiev examined whether or not the canons of the church could be changed. (They
can be.) Others included Fr. Cyprian Kern’s discerning of the levitical and prophetic
models of pastoral identity, George Fedotov on the church’s being shaped by the modern
world and its thinking (as well as vice versa) and Lev Zander’s vigorous argument for
ecumenical work as the work of the Spirit. Quite radical for the time yet still challenging
to us today, he affirmed ecumenical work as a continuing Pentecost and all believers as
“Christ-bearers” to each other and to the world, though members of divided churches.
Church historian A.V. Kartashev likewise argued for the freedom of theological work
over against ecclesiastical authority, a bold challenge both to the pre-revolutionary
Russian Church and some of the rigidity of Diaspora communities. Basil Zenkovsky took
on the cosmic aspects of Christian faith and thought and Boris Sove the ancient
communal celebration of the Eucharist as opposed to the many restrictions and
individualized piety of “contemporary,” that is early 20th century Russian practice.4 Paul
Valliere has provided incisive analysis of Living Tradition and its all too often
overlooked manifesto about the appropriateness and authenticity of dialogue between
theology and modern thought, real conversation between culture and the church.5
Given later developments, the essays in Living Tradition were nothing short of
clairvoyant. Consider the great trilogy on the humanity of God and eschatology that
Bulgakov went on to publish as well as his study of the Book of the
2
(Paris: YMCA Press, 1937).
“For a style in preaching,” Sergievskie listki (The St. Sergius leaflets), No. 1-2 (99-100), 1936,
pp. 15-17. Translated by Thomas E. Bird, in The Orthodox Church, January, 1973.
4
In an anthology I edited and in part helped translate, we tried to bring to light many of these essays as well
as others by the same authors in a similar key. The collection in tribute was entitled Tradition Alive: On the
Church and the Christian Life in Our Time-Readings from the Eastern Church, ed. Michael Plekon,
Lanham MD: Sheed & Ward/Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
5
Modern Russian Theology: Soloviev, Bukharev, Bulgakov, Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2000 and “The
“Paris School” of Theology: Unity or Multiplicity?”,Conference on “La Teologia ortodossa e l’Occidente
nel XX secolo: Storia di un incontro,” Seriate, Italy, October 30-31, 2004
3
3
Apocalypse/Revelation. Berdiaev continued his production of works, many of them
championing the freedom of the Gospel as well as the need for engagement in modern
life. Fr. Afanasiev, after caring for a Tunisian parish in the war years, spent the rest of his
career in historical work on the limits of the church and the “eucharistic ecclesiology” of
the first centuries. His work would set the course of ecclesiology, shaping not only the
documents of Vatican II but the work of such as von Allmen, Tillard, Cullman, Bouyer
and in particular Alexander Schmemann and John Meyendorff. Schmemann took
Afanasiev’s probing of the structure and relationships among bishops, presbyters,
deacons and laity not only as a model for the restoration and renewal of celebration of
the Eucharist but also to the renewal of the life of the Orthodox church in America. Lev
Zander’s commitment to theological education and to the work of the World Council of
Churches, along with another Bulgakov student, Paul Evdokimov, resulted in significant
Orthodox presence in the international ecumenical movement.
To see “tradition” as “living” is to see it capable of creative response, in new language
and concepts, to new situations. Bulgakov’s important essay emphasizes the Spirit’s
ability to grow new understanding that do not diminish the truth of the traditional
expressions of truth. He and the others had a sense of continuity from the past but also
saw the modern period as the arena for God’s action. They could not see the world as
separable from the Kingdom of God and the Church. Rather, the world is created by God.
As Soloviev and then Bulgakov emphasized in the concept of “the humanity of God,”
(Bogochelovechestvo) in the Incarnation God enters the world of space and time.
Christological dogma insists that God is humanized as we are divinized. This realization
forms the foundation for openness to the world, to culture and politics and all that is
human-because God now shares this humanity.
Now it is not possible to consider the long procession of theologians, philosophers and
others who looked for a real engagement of the Church and the world. One must go to
Antoine Arjakovsky’s massive and masterful study which looks at those who contributed
to the journal ‘Put in Paris.6 There is no study even close to his in sweep or in depth.
I want to argue that Bulgakov’s engagement with political economy, philosophy and
social theory convinced him, as Paul Valliere claims, that tradition can and indeed should
be in dialogue with modernity, i.e. that some of the perspectives of the social sciences are
constructive rather than corrosive of authentic Orthodox/orthodox theology. Perhaps the
foremost theological critic of social theory in recent years, John Milbank, I believe, has
identified Bulgakov as one of the most important theologians of the modern era. 7 It is, of
course encouraging to hear this, given all the condemnation and rejection that Bulgakov
has suffered over the years, mostly from his fellow Orthodox Christians. Is likewise
intriguing given that over the years we have heard so much more about Barth, Tillich,
Rahner or von Balthasar, not to mention Bonhoeffer and de Lubac. I mention these
because in the enormous Blackwell volume, all these receive individual sections as 20th
century “classics,” along with Torrance, the Niebuhrs, Moltmann and Pannenberg. 8 It is
not until Rowan Williams’ essay covering the totality of Eastern Orthodox theology that
La généneration des penseurs religieux de l’émigration russe, Kiev & Paris: L’Esprit et la Lettre, 2002.
Theology & Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason, 2nd ed., Oxford & Malden MA: Blackwell, 2006.
8
The Modern Theologians, ed. David F. Ford, with Rachel Muers,3rd ed., Oxford & Malden MA, 2005.
6
7
4
Bulgakov’s name emerges as a principal figure (along with Vladimir Lossky and Georges
Florovsky).9 Just recently at an ecumenical consultation I heard an Orthodox ecumenical
official essentially dismiss Bulgakov as not part of mainstream theological education,
possibly an interest in more specialized philosophical and theological research, exactly
the opposite of what Antoine Arjakovsky argued in his essay in the special double issue
of St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly devoted to…the work of Sergius Bulgakov.10
Throughout his long life and scholarly career, Fr. Sergius Bulgakov was many things.
The son of a priest and a seminary student briefly, like other intellectuals in late 19 th
century Russia drifted from the faith and found another, first in socialism, then in the
liberating thought of German idealism and Russian religious philosophy. It is not possible
to grasp Bulgakov’s own path without seeing, in his writings, the influence of Schelling
and Boehme, of Soloviev and Dostoievsky. The story of his pilgrimage finds him
returning “to the house of the Father,” namely the Church. He became an important
advisor to Metropolitan then Patriarch Tikhon at the Moscow Council of 1917-18. Not
long after he was ordained a priest, with his friend Fr Pavel Florensky not only
accompanying him round the altar in the ordination but also mentoring him in learning to
celebrate the liturgy, even providing him with his ordination cross (as well as a great deal
of theological inspiration).
The rest of his life (he already had a notable academic career before his expulsion in
1922) was spent mostly as the dean of St. Sergius Institute in Paris. From his start there in
1925 until his death from a stroke 13 July 1944 he produced a second authorship that
towers over what he had already written before the Revolution and his emigration-- the
smaller and greater trilogies, the studies of the theology of the icon, of the angels, the
Mother of God, the Apocalypse. Then there were his lecture tours to America, his intense
participation for over a decade in the ecumenical work of the Orthodox-Anglican
Fellowship of St Alban and St. Sergius, his participation in the Lausanne and conferences
of what we know today as the WCC, the many persons he confessed and cared for
pastorally, the sermons he preached---it seems almost more than a life or even the second
half of a life! But then often overlooked, is the long line of students and colleagues he
worked with and profoundly influenced, from Kartashev, Afanasiev, Berdiaev, Fedotov
and Zander already mentioned to Sts Maria Skobtsova and Dimitri Klepinine, theologians
Paul Evdokimov, Olivier Clement, Elisabeth Behr Sigel (recently fallen asleep), Nicolas
and Militza Zernov, iconographer Sister Joanna Reitlinger, Bishop Cassian, Frs. Lev
Gillet, Alexis Kniazeff and Alexander Schmemann, Bishop Walter Frere, Evgeny
Lampert, and later John Meyendorff and Alexander Men. Antoine Arjakovsky notes even
more outside the Eastern Church such as Congar, LeGuillou, Bouyer, von Balthasar and
Rowan Williams.11
9
ibid., 572-588. Also see Rowan Williams, Sergii Bulgakov: Towards a Russian Political Theology,
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. The archbishop has also presented a number of penetrating papers on
Bulgakov, see e.g. http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/050423.htm
10
St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 49: 1&2, 2005.
11
Not only has Bulgakov been a principal focus of Antoine Arjakovsky’s work as well as my own, but we
count as colleagues in this Paul Gavrilyuk, Myroslaw Tataryn, Brandon Gallaher, Bryn Geffert and Sergei
Nikolaev, among others.
5
The number of those in some way affected by Fr. Sergius is immense. And surely the
memoirs of him as a person, like those recently compiled by Gillian Crow in her
autobiography of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom, do not yield a hagiographic or idealized
image. In his always acerbic but usually insightful reminiscences, Fr. Basil Zenkovsky
sketches a realistic image of a gifted yet conflicted, tender but often distant man. Even
those who admired his pastoral gifts, his rapt attention while celebrating the liturgy often
had little use for some of his central intellectual interests such as Sophia, Divine Wisdom.
This was the case for Fr. Alexander Schmemann who nevertheless named Fr. Bulgakov
as the single most significant influence upon him.12
Yet let me suggest a few specific ways in which Fr. Sergius Bulgakov contributed to the
encounter of the Church with modernity and how his roots and training in the social
sciences helped him.
1. The first of these would be his eschatological vision, his seeing through the inner
ecclesial tensions, contradictions, abuses and even the divisions among the churches..
Only because of his grounding in historical analysis as well as in political science and
sociology that Bulgakov was able to distinguish the divine dimension of the church from
its so very human one without at any time confusing them, separating them, conflating
them, ignoring one or the other. And only because he recognized the church as both
earthly and divine could he be so critical of the leadership of the hierarchs, of the
superstition that passed for tradition as in the toll houses and other anthromorphisms
retrojected back onto a realm in which they had no place, e.g. equating divine justice with
that of the courts here, mistaking an ignorant sectarian view of unity in faith with the
explosive centripetal force of the Spirit in the church. Precisely because he possessed a
powerful grasp of the empirical church could Bulgakov then stand it over against the
heavenly bride of the Lamb in the New Jerusalem. In “The Soul of Socialism” he wrote:
Still less is this[upsurge of fresh inspiration] a belated renaissance of
clericalism on the Catholic model, which struggles to possess both of the
“two swords,” and wants to put the direction of all life into the hands of
the ecclesiastical organization: a life that develops in an ecclesial way,
moving outwards from within, has no longer any need of external
submission to authority. No, what we are speaking of is belief in the
Church and in its own distinctive living power, activated by the Holy
Spirit’s life within it. The proclamation of the Kingdom of God, which has
never been silenced in the Church, must now make itself heard in those
areas of life in which up to now, it has been propounded in adequate ways;
the dry bones must be vitalized with a new spirit. …The great sin of the
modern Christian community is its uncreative relationship to social life, a
failure which is not made any the less serious by being concealed under
the mask of an apparent asceticism. Indifference is not victory, and
spiritual absenteeism is not asceticism. In its search for meaning, society is
exhausting its powers: its still has no guidance from the Church and has
itself lost direction.13
12
13
Personal testimony of Professor Vigen Guroian .
“The Soul of Socialism,” in Sergii Bulgakov: Towards a Russian Political Theology, . 265.
6
2. The second is closely connected, namely his awareness of the relationship of the divine
and the human in his project of examining all the positive consequences of the
Incarnation, more precisely in pursuing the meaning of the “humanity of God”
(Bogochelovechestvo) both for God and for humanity and the world. Also related and
often overlooked is his recognition of the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit, what he
sometimes referred to as a “permanent Pentecost.” In other words a pneumatological
vision. Bulgakov saw the very act of creation as the kenosis or emptying of God in love
toward his creatures. The Incarnation was the second such outpouring when God entered
time and space to return creation to what it has originally be made to be. And he found in
the Eucharist the supreme expression of the communion and community of God and
humankind and moreover cosmically, with all creation.
Thus we see that the Liturgy represents the Incarnation which again takes
place for us, is renewed, is repeated. Christ again comes into the world to
unite with His Humanity, and the rays of this union emerge from the Holy
Chalice and penetrate the hearts of those who approach the Sacrament.
And through Communion they fulfill for themselves the accomplished
Incarnation, uniting with Christ into one Body, into one deified
humanity…This earthly history of the Church is revealed in the
Apocalypse, in mysterious and symbolic images, and in itself it represents
an apocalypse. And it culminates with the descent of the Heavenly City,
the New Jerusalem, to earth. In whatever way we are led to interpret the
particular symbols of the Apocalypse in detail, we cannot but agree as to
its one common meaning: the city of God is built within history by the
efforts of those who are the faithful servants of Christ the King…The rays
of light from the Eucharistic Chalice penetrate all the darkness of our life,
and the darkness cannot overcome this light. The inspiration of the
Eucharist ought to accompany us in all our creative activity in life, and the
Liturgy—the “common cause” must be transformed into a liturgy
celebrated outside the temple. ..everything in Christian life must be-if not
directly, at least indirectly-orientated towards the Incarnation, and
therefore associated with the Chalice of the Eucharist…14
3. Lastly, and following from the above is what might be called the sociological sense of
ecclesiology, or what his student Paul Evdokimov referred to as a social ecclesiology.15
Bulgakov’s understanding of what the Church is capable of, not just as a political and
cultural force but particularly as an eschatological presence, as an agent of the Kingdom
of God. For three decades his social science training and research gradually was coupled
with his immersion in theology, both shaping the perspectives of each other. From his
early criticism of Plekhanov’s economic and political theory he moved toward looking at
“The Eucharist and the Social Problems of Modern Society,” Journal of the Fellowship of St Alban and
St Sergius, 21 (1933), 15, 19.
15
“The Church and Society: The Social Dimension of Orthodox Ecclesiology,” in In the World, of the
Church: A Paul Evdokimov Reader, Michael Plekon & Alexis Vinogradov, eds. & trans. Crestwood NY:
St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001, 61-94.
14
7
the failings of the intelligentsia, then the need for an everyday heroism very much like
Kierkegaard’s “knight of faith.” A high point of this development was his study of work
and the world as household.16 During one of his lecture tours in the US he gave a
remarkable paper at Columbia University and another on the Church’s social teaching.17
And there were his essays on “The Soul of Socialism,” on Christianity’s rejection of the
racism of Fascist anti-Semitism, and on “The Spirit of Prophecy,” his last contribution to
the Fellowship.18 Bulgakov showed himself to have remained a “Christian socialist,” as
John Milbank has called him.
The Church is the constant arena of the Spirit in creation. It is an understatement that
when Bulgakov says “church” his meaning transcends even the most encompassing and
expansive of theologians. He sees the Church present not only in the times of the
patriarchs and matriarchs, the prophets and kings of the Old Covenant and through them
into that of the apostles, martyrs and confessors of the New. The Church is the
unbreakable relationship between Creator and creation. The Church is the bride of the
Lamb, the New Jerusalem, come down among us for the transformation of the world.19
While Bulgakov himself only laid out some of the outlines for this, his spiritual children
Sts Maria Skobtsova and Dimitri Klepinine put it into practice for the poor and the
persecuted in the hostel at 77 rue de Lourmel in Paris and witnesses with their lives under
the Nazi occupation, dying in the camps.20 Their lives truly were celebrations of the
liturgy after the liturgy, the service of God in the service of the neighbor outside the
church building.21 Lay theologian Paul Evdokimov also enacted this transformative social
ethic first in the Resistance and then in ecumenical hostels as well as in theological
schools. An especially powerful statement of this “social ecclesiology” was given as a
course and then published. It was radical even by the standards of our day, almost 40
years later, calling for the global redistribution of resources and income. Evdokimov’s
good friend, the recently deceased lay theologian Elisabeth Behr-Sigel likewise
maintained a life of social engagement alongside her writing and lecturing on spirituality,
Among other texts, too numerous to mention here, see Filsofiia khoziastva, Moscow, Izdatel’stvo Put,
1912[Philosophy of Economy: The World as Household, trans. Catherine Evtuhov, Yale University Press,
2000]; “Heroism and the Spiritual Struggle,” in Rowan Williams, Sergii Bulgakov, 69-112, originally in
Vekhi, Moscow, 1909 [Signposts, trans. Marshall S. Schatz &Judith E. Zimmerman, Irvine CA, 1986]. Also
see Catherine Evtuhov, The Cross and the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious
Philosophy, Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1997 and Valliere, Modern Russian Theology, 253-289.
17
“From Marxism to Sophiology,” Review of Religion, 1:4, 1937, “Social Teaching in Modern Russian
Orthodox Theology,” in Orthodoxy and Modern Society, Robert Bird, ed.New Haven CT: The Variable
Press, 1995.
18
In the latter two see Rowan Williams, Sergii Bulgakov, 229-272 and 293-303. Bulgakov’s essays on
Fascist racism/antisemitisim are in Khristiansvo i yevreiskii vopros, Nikita Struve, ed., Paris: YMCA Press,
1991.
19
I think the most creative and insightful and as it tuned out final vision of the Church is to be found in last
volume of the great trilogy: Nevesta agntsa , Paris: YMCA Press, 1945 [The Bride of the Lamb, trans. Boris
Jakim, Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2002.
20
Sergei Hackel, Pearl of Great Price-The Life of Mother Maria Skobtsova 1891-1945, Crestwood NY: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1981, Mother Maria Skobtsova: Essential Writings, trans. Richard Pevear &
Larissa Volokhonsky, Maryknoll NY: Orbis, 2003.
21
Michael Plekon, “The ‘Sacrament of the Brother/Sister’: The Lives and Thought of Mother Maria
Skobtsova and Paul Evdokimov,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 49: 3, 2005, 313-334.
16
8
the place of women in the church and the necessity of the church’s dialogue with
society.22 She did her dissertation on Alexander Bukharev, of the first theologians in 19th
century Russia to call for theological encounter with modernity. She also was a friend
and collaborator of St. Maria Skobtsova, active in the Resistance, and was for decades a
leader in ACAT, the international organization against torture. Running through all of her
work and writing is the recognition of the Church “discerning the signs of the times,”
itself a sign of the kingdom while working for the transformation of the world into that
kingdom.
My own teacher, Peter L. Berger, spent a lifetime bringing into conversation with
theology the most humane yet critical perspectives of social theory. For him, it enabled
an appreciation of the social constructedness of religion as well as the human functions of
the sacred, if you will, its humanity and historicity are wedded to the divine.23 This has
made for a realization of how religion can indeed be “used” for all kinds of political and
social purposes, how it can be disregarded, secularized. It has also led to the realization of
the “signals of transcendence” embedded in the very human structures and the possibility
of along with questioning confessing Christian faith.24 Years before, the same
constructive confluence of social theory and theology enabled Fr. Sergius Bulgakov to
describe the ugliness and cruelty of the 20th century but also to see the luminous vision of
the heavenly city, bringing joy where there was sin and sorrow.
In the final words of the final book of the New Testament, one hears
again the song of the sister-bride-wife, the Unwedded Bride, What does
this mean? Why do we hear precisely here this revelation of the Church,
which we also find in some of the apostolic epistles(Ephesians,
Corinthians)? Do we not see an inappropriate agglomeration in these
conjoined images of the city “prepared as a bride adorned for her
husband”? (Rev. 21: 2) Does this…belong to the eastern style of
apaocalyptic, or does it express the great, final mystery of Christ and of
the Church, in the revelation of the final accomplishment and of the
glory of the world? But is not the entire world in its humanity the
kingdom of love, which embraces the natural and human world? In this
world, everyone finds himself with all and in all, in creation and history,
in the kingdom of grace and glory, in the body of Christ and the temple
of the Holy Spirit. This is the most general and complete revelation that
we have of the Church as humanity in Divine-humanity.25
22
The Place of the Heart: An Introduction to Orthodox Spirituality, The Ministry of Women in the Church,
trans. Fr. Steven Bigham, Discerning the Signs of the Times: The Vision of Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, ed.
Michael Plekon & Sarah Hinlicky, Crestwood NY, Oakwood/St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992, 1991,
2001, Elisabeth Behr-Sigel & Kallistos Ware, The Ordination of Women in the Church, Geneva: WCC
Publications, 2000.
23
The Social Construction of Reality (with Thomas Luckmann), The Sacred Canopy, Garden City NY:
Doubleday-Anchor, 1966, 1969.
24
A Rumor of Angels, Garden City, NY: Doubleday-Anchor, 1970, A Far Glory, NY: Free Press, 1992;
Questions of Faith, Malden MA & Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.
25
The Bride of the Lamb, 525.