“Thicket of Idols”: Alexander Schmemann's Critique of Orthodoxy

John A. Jillions

Introduction

Father Alexander Schmemann died in theologians of the twentieth century 1983, long before the resurgence of the and had a profound effect on liturgi- Orthodox Churches in Eastern Europe cal theology and its lived expression could be realistically imagined, with across the Orthodox and wider Chris- what this might mean for the emer- tian world. His writing, teaching, gence of a powerful Orthodox voice liturgical celebration, sermons, con- worldwide. Today, global Orthodoxy versations, and presence had deep in- is more free than it has been in cen- fluence on so many people, especially turies and—despite continuing divi- his thousands of students, of whom sions—has the ability to start coming I am blessed to be one (I studied at together to find and speak in its own St. Vladimir’s Seminary from 1977 to voice, as the Holy and Great Council 1980). in Crete 2016 at least haltingly demon- strated. But this raises the question: For ten years before his death, Father 1 Alexander Schme- what message will this new and po- Schmemann kept a personal journal mann, The Journals tentially muscular Orthodoxy bring to that was later translated, edited, and of Father Alexander the world? published by his wife Juliana.1 As his Schmemann, 1973– journals reveal, Schmemann deeply 1983 (Crestwood: SVS Press, 2000). Schmemann, the longtime dean of St. loved and was shaped by his expe- Subsequent referenc- Vladimir’s Seminary in New York, rience of the Orthodox Church, but es given in text. was one of the leading Orthodox he was also deeply critical. While he

20 was a masterful observer and critic of in a thicket of idols. To be attached Western society and Western Christi- to the past always leads to idolatry, anity, he reserved his most trenchant and I see many people living by the critique for the Church he knew best. past, or rather, by many pasts” (18). And in this, as Vigen Guroian has said, This theme is repeated relentlessly Schmemann was “undoubtedly the throughout the journals. In February harshest self-critic among Orthodox 1977 he writes: theologians.”2 Schmemann’s funda- mental criticism was that Orthodoxy I realize how spiritually tired I am had become an idol to itself. It had of all this “Orthodoxism,” of all the thus eclipsed Christ. And because of fuss with Byzantium, Russia, way its allergy to self-criticism, Orthodoxy of life, spirituality, church affairs, had become incapable of seeing, ad- piety, of all these rattles. I do not mitting, and repenting of its fault. The like any of them, and the more I Orthodox Church would fall short of think about the meaning of Chris- the joyful eschatological vision of the tianity, the more it all seems alien Gospels until it put the idol of Ortho- to me. It literally obscures Christ, doxy to death. pushes him into the background (146). The first part of this essay will ex- amine Schmemann’s journals for the And yet such self-criticism finds no various streams of his critique and place for consideration in Orthodoxy. will argue that the doubts, criticisms, Schmemann’s key contention is that and questions he first raised private- the very notion of self-criticism is sim- ly many years ago still need serious ply absent from historic Orthodoxy. public attention as Orthodoxy seeks to find its voice, message, and mission An Orthodox person will not say, in the twenty-first century. However, will not acknowledge that Or- if Father Alexander’s vocation as a thodoxy can be decadent, that a prophet (a title he himself would have great part of the heavy volumes eschewed) led him to speak clearly, of the liturgical Menaion consists convincingly, and critically about the of imitative and often meaningless realities he saw, he was much more rhetoric. An Orthodox person will ambivalent about proposing solu- condemn that very thought as he- tions. Without attempting to guess retical and sinful (315). what his solutions might be today, in the second part of this essay I will Without this faculty of self-criticism suggest that Father Alexander’s sharp change is impossible. “To change the critique can be channeled into posi- atmosphere of Orthodoxy,” he says, tive terms by refocusing the Orthodox “one has to learn to look at oneself in Church on Christ as scriptural, con- perspective, to repent, and, if need- templative, and self-emptying. ed, to accept change, conversion. But in historic Orthodoxy, there is a total Schmemann’s Critique of Orthodoxy absence of criteria of self-criticism” 2 Vigen Guroian, (47). Accompanying this absence “An Orthodox View The title of this essay is taken from of self-criticism is a “denial of any of Orthodoxy and Schmemann’s journal entry for No- reason, logos, analysis” (192) and a Heresy: An Appreci- ation of Fr Alexander vember 26, 1973: “‘Little children, “deadening of thought and vision” Schmemann,” Pro keep yourselves from idols!’ (1 John (329) that have produced lamentable Ecclesia 4.1 (Winter 5:21). Sometimes I see Orthodoxy immobility, narrowmindedness, and 1995): 86.

The Wheel 16 | Winter 2019 21 provincialism. The Church is perpet- out of touch with reality. Schmemann ually looking backward to a mythic on a few occasions hints at the com- past rather than forward to the com- ic absurdity of the Byzantine picture ing of Christ and his Kingdom, thus of Orthodoxy, especially as it is dis- robbing Orthodoxy of its original played in the West, with its vestments, eschatological vision. Instead of liv- awards, titles, and jockeying for hon- ing the tension between history and or. It is comical, he says, “but nobody eschatology, argues Schmemann, Or- laughs” (330). thodoxy has settled comfortably for “hopelessly Constantinian” Byzan- In the East, people are often devoid tine and Slavic worlds that substitut- of any sense of humor; therefore ed spirituality for Christ (208). “What they are often pompous, proud, happened was the reduction of the prone to dramatize. I am always Church to a mysterious piety, the dy- sad when meeting people without ing of its eschatological essence and humor, often tense, easily offend- mission, and finally the de-Christian- ed. If we have to “be like children,” ization of this world and its secular- it is impossible to do so without ization” (317). By taking the focus laughter. But laughter fell and can away from Christ, says Schmemann, also be demonic. In dealing with church life itself was turned into an “idols,” however, laughter is salu- idol and became sin. “The depth and tary, since it allows us to see them the newness of that sin is that the in perspective (22). idol is the Church, the services, theology, piety, religion itself. It sounds Once the church becomes an idol, it is like a cheap paradox, but the Church subject to a bewildering array of temp- is most harmed and hindered by the tations. I found six broad sets of these Church itself, Orthodoxy by Ortho- temptations in Schmemann’s Journals. doxy, Christian life by piety” (167). These citations are only examples, to which many more could be added: Time and again, Schmemann points to the triumphalism, arrogance, and 1. Self-infatuation, pride and arrogance. pride of Orthodoxy, especially vis-à- vis the Christian West. This is a theme The goal of the Church has become that appears regularly in Schme- the Church itself, its organization, mann’s writing, as Vigen Guroian its welfare, its success! (329) points out: 2. Preoccupation with honor and rights. On the one hand, Orthodox tri- umphalistically claimed exclusive It is frightening to think that in possession of the ancient tradi- some sense, the Church also lives tion. On the other hand, the con- with pride—“the rights of the sciousness and behavior of the churches,” “the rights of the Ecu- Orthodox Christians belied this menical Throne,” “the dignity of claim and showed them every bit the Russian Church,” etc., and a as compromised to secularism as flood of joyless complicated and the Western forms of Christianity fearful “spirituality.” It is a contin- that they criticized.3 uous self-destruction (161).

This triumphalism would be more ir- 3. Triumph of self-enclosed traditions that 3 Ibid., 81. ritating if it were not so ridiculously exclude the possibility of anything new.

22 Whether it’s Russians, Car- ville of klobuks, cowls, stylization, etc.” © 2019 The Wheel. patho-Russians, Greeks, Arabs, (284). May be distributed for noncommercial use. Albanians, Serbians or Roma- www.wheeljournal.com nians, there stands between them I feel like running away from and Orthodoxy (their own faith) a this kind of Orthodoxy with all sort of wall, impossible to breach its cassocks, headwear, pointless with preaching, books, or any re- ceremonies, unctuousness and ligious educational activity. And slyness; to be myself, not to play it is so because this wall essential- some artificial, archaic, dull role ly represents their perception of (304). the Church (already existing for centuries), of liturgical services, Schmemann is especially distressed of spirituality, of faith itself. It is that these pathologies so easily infect not only emptiness, an absence of newcomers to the Orthodox Church. knowledge or interest. No. It is a Here he comments on a recent con- kind of fullness beyond measure, vert: forbidding any intrusion into their conscience of anything new Why is it that the closer he came (326). into contact with Orthodoxy, the stronger was his longing for this 4. A psychological style that promotes dark, strange fanaticism, for accu- a religion of joyless “falsity and fear” sations and cursing? If only he was (294), escape and indifference to the the only one, but it happens with world. so many converts and also with so many cradle Orthodox people Byzantium’s complete indiffer- who fall into “acute churchli- ence to the world is astounding. ness.” Is it a reaction against the The drama of Orthodoxy: we did minimalism of the Church, of par- not have a Renaissance, sinful but ishes? At some point they begin to liberating from the sacred. So we hate the light and the joy of that live in nonexistent worlds: In Byz- faith, and it is so frightening (320). antium, in Rus, wherever, but not in our own time (213). In spite of these damning observations, it would be a mistake to read 5. Loss of childlike simplicity and direct- Schmemann’s journals through this ness in liturgical life, human relations lens alone. Indeed, just ten days be- and church order (155, 181, 253). fore he wrote that entry about the “thicket of idols” he wrote about How torturous is the “churchly” being “elated” by the Pittsburgh language that one must speak in All-American Council in Novem- church—the tone, style, habit. ber 1973, the bi-annual gathering of It is all artificial; there is a total about 1000 bishops, clergy, and laity absence of simple human lan- from across North America. guage. With what a sigh of relief one leaves the world of cassocks, I went to the council quite down- hand-kissing and church gossip cast and with a lack of any en- (254.) thusiasm, not expecting much. After three days of incredible ef- 6. Clericalism (310), a “bachanalia of sa- fort and tension (I was chairman cred ‘things’” (273), a monastic “vaude- again) suddenly it became quite

The Wheel 16 | Winter 2019 23 clear: Our Church is alive in spite In spite of its flaws, the miracle, of everything, and an assembly says Schmemann, is that the histor- of rather “little” people is trans- ic Orthodox Church has preserved figured into the Church. Won- enough authentic life, especially in derful prayer services. Hundreds its liturgy, to be a source of wonder of communicants and, mainly, a and joy. “Once more, I am convinced kind of common inspiration. I still that I am quite alienated from Byz- feel elated by the Council. The antium, and even hostile to it. What miracle of the Holy Spirit in an is surprising is that the Byzantine American Hilton Hotel! (18) Liturgy basically withstood and en- dured this stuffiness and did not let It would also be a mistake to read it into the ‘Holy of Holies’” (213). But Schmemann’s critique as a rebellion this also means that the Orthodox against hierarchy. While being crit- Church is leading two contradicto- ical of so many aspects of contem- ry lives. “I have the feeling that in porary Orthodoxy, Schmemann re- Orthodoxy (i.e. in Christianity) two peatedly rejects rebellion as a valid religions coexist in many ways op- modus operandi in the Church. He posites of each other. The religion of spent much of his career working Christ—fulfilled in the Church, and closely with bishops—and arguing the religion of the Church, or simply with them—but he says, “I believe in religion” (172). bishops with the same faith I believe in the Church,” because bishops, in Constructive Ways to Address their essential conservatism, preserve Schmemann’s Critique? the patient and careful discernment of spirits the Church needs in every If Father Alexander is bitingly clear age (152). about the critique, what about his solutions? While he felt that the Or- Schmemann’s journals are dotted thodox Church in history had large- with experiences of parishes, peo- ly lost its ability to be a prophetic ple, and church life that inspire him, voice for Christ, how this might be despite the idols he sees and fights restored to address specific issues against. After the Memorial Day cele- even he could not say precisely. For brations at St. Tikhon’s Monastery in example, he felt that the Orthodox May 1977, he wrote: tendency to turn all church history into sacred history was problemat- I thought again that I am at home ic, but he felt torn between histori- in the Church, although so often in ans and pastors and could offer no doubt about churchly details. . . . As solution. ailing as the Church is, as coarse, as worldly as church life has become; There is something there that no matter how much the solely hu- needs to be corrected, but how? man, too human triumphs in the I do not know. On one hand I Church—only through the Church agree with historians, since with- can one see the light of the King- out a historical perspective, there dom of God. But one can see that would be false absolutisms. On light and rejoice in it only inasmuch the other hand, I agree with those as one denies one’s self, liberates of the pastoral group who tend to one’s self from pride, from narrow- limit history for the sake of a real, ness and constraint (170). live, existing Church (53).

24 On many questions he was ambiva- It is uncertain what the implications © 2019 The Wheel. lent and unprepared to give solutions. of “overcoming the whole ‘shell’ of May be distributed for noncommercial use. “Everybody around me seems to know tradition” would look like to Father www.wheeljournal.com so clearly what is needed; they are all Alexander. Had he lived longer, it goal-oriented, while I always have the would have been interesting to see feeling that I really do not know what, whether he publicly verbalized more where, why” (52). Schmemann’s jour- about what this meant to him. But in nals are full of unanswered questions the end, what we are left with is his that he poses to himself, and there insightful diagnosis and a very broad is no clearly thought-out scheme to treatment plan. address the issues he raises. As Vi- gen Guroian reports, Schmemann I am not trying to summarize Father was not sure whether the Orthodox Alexander’s lifetime of writing or his Church would be prepared to han- journals. Nor do I pretend to imagine dle the break up of secularism either what prescriptions he might have pro- in the West or in the East. At least on posed had he lived into our own time, one occasion, “Schmemann wondered with its particular temptations. But us- out loud whether the church would ing his observations as a foundation, I be prepared to answer the genuine simply offer three ways that his pro- religious needs of modern people in phetic hope for church life could be put the breach as they searched for some- into practice: by focusing on the scrip- thing to believe in and hope for after tural Christ, the contemplative Christ, the collapse of secularism’s ‘religious’ and the self-emptying Christ. hegemony.”4 The scriptural Christ What does emerge from Schmemann’s journals is a single test to judge all “In the Bible,” wrote Schmemann, church life: faithfulness to Christ. Is this “there is space and air; in Byzantium or that dimension of church activity— the air is always stuffy” (213). It is this be it a parish, a diocese, a monastery, biblical music that Schmemann hears a seminary, a jurisdiction, a patriarch- as the “the melody of Orthodoxy, pre- ate, a mission, a board, a department, cisely never stifling, but joyful, light, a commission, or an institution—mak- free” (199). While his writings are per- ing known Christ, as he is encountered meated with the spirit of the Gospels, in the catholic fullness of the Ortho- this spirit somehow did not translate dox faith? If not, it has lost its prophet- into the liturgical emphasis that is as- ic voice and is bound by the “‘shell’ of sociated with his name. He was part- tradition.” ly responsible for this. Certainly, the focus of seminary education came Prophecy must be about Christ; not through the lens of worship, not pri- about Jesus, not about religious re- marily the Scriptures. For Father Al- vival, not about prayer and spir- exander, liturgy was life in its fullest ituality, but about Christ, as he is sense and encompassed everything revealed in the genuinely Catholic, about life in Christ as expressed in genuinely Orthodox faith. . . . Not the Scriptures. But Orthodox clergy return to the Fathers or Hellenism, and parishes are much more likely but in a way, the overcoming of to stress the need for full liturgical the whole “shell” of tradition—the schedules than personal familiari- opening, the rediscovery of Truth ty with Christ as he reveals himself itself, as given to us in Christ (165). through the scriptures. 4 Ibid., 86.

The Wheel 16 | Winter 2019 25 © 2019 The Wheel. false, stylized; and mostly unre- May be distributed for In 2010, my wife and I had the great strained idle talk about monasti- noncommercial use. www.wheeljournal.com blessing to stay in Labelle, Quebec for cism and spirituality. And here a few days in late summer, where the are they, in a real desert. A real, Schmemanns have a summer cottage. heroic feat (189). We had insightful conversations with Juliana Schmemann, who reposed in Juliana said there was a deeply con- January 2017. She shared Father Alex- templative side to Father Alexan- ander’s view “that Orthodoxy has be- der. During summers in Labelle he come detached from the Gospel, from would work at the dining table early Christ. He is the one who is the cen- in the morning, looking out over the ter, whose suffering and crucifixion lake. “When he would hit a rough on our behalf must be at the heart of spot in his writing he would go out faith. I wonder if we haven’t become onto the porch and walk back and detached from that. Too much church forth. At those times he would tell and not enough Gospel.” me, ‘I have to go to the white rock, do belogo kamnya.’ It was a reference I The contemplative Christ never understood.” Perhaps there’s not much to this. In other conversations with Juliana Maybe Father Alexander was simply Schmemann, she said that one of the referring to a favorite white inspira- most spiritually satisfying places she tional rock up there in Labelle that he had encountered was the community needed to see or touch. But to me, it of nuns at the Orthodox Monastery of could well be a reference to Revelation the Transfiguration in Ellwood City, 2:17: “To him who conquers I will give Pennsylvania. “It’s a piece of paradise some of the hidden manna, and I will for me,” she said. I was surprised how give him a white stone, with a new warmly she spoke of the monastery, name written on the stone which no because this tone seemed to contrast one knows except him who receives with Father Alexander’s apparent it.” The journals reveal this prayerful, skepticism about monastics. “No,” she hidden, contemplative dimension of said. “That’s a mistaken impression Father Alexander on every page. But that many have. Father was not against it is also no accident that Mary, the monasticism, or confession, but he was Mother of God, the one who “kept all against how it was manifested. He these things, pondering them in her would have loved the nuns.” Indeed, heart” (Luke 2:19) was the subject of Father Alexander appreciated the au- some of Father Alexander’s most pro- thentic monasticism he encountered found reflections.5 among the Copts in Egypt during a visit in 1978: The self-emptying Christ

I had an extraordinary day: a visit Juliana Schmemann said that Father in the desert to three monasteries Alexander was one of most self-giv- with an uninterrupted tradition ing and kindest people she ever knew. from Anthony the Great, Makari- “That made it difficult sometimes for os etc. . . . And the most amazing, others because he would not make any 5 See, for example of course, is how very much alive harsh decisions.” At the same time, he Alexander Schme- mann, The Virgin it all is: Real monks! In my whole spent himself completely and worked Mary (Crestwood: life, I have seen only imitations, endless hours: teaching, seminary ad- SVS Press, 2002). only playing at monastic life, ministration, liturgical services, con-

26 fessions, counseling, church commit- for re-imagining how the Orthodox— tees and consulting, writing books, his now facing the real possibility of a new weekly broadcasts on Radio Liberty and powerful stage in our history— (two each week, for thirty years). Still, could refocus Church life on Christ in she said, “one of his constant preoccu- scriptural, contemplative, and self-emp- pations was the sense that he was not tying ways that cut through the “thick- doing enough for the Lord. He would et of idols.” Still, even these would be have made a wonderful martyr!” half-measures. In Father Alexander’s eschatological vision of the Kingdom of What I draw from Father Schme- God, only the death of Christianity as mann’s example is this: if the beset- we know it would be able to triumph ting sin of the Orthodox Church is over its destructive inner forces. self-idolatry, then the cure is its op- posite—self-emptying for the sake of The “death of Christianity!” It others, becoming a servant church, sounds horrible. But is it so? emptying itself for the life of the It constantly seems to me (and world. Many have written about the gives me inner light and joy) special place of “kenoticism” in Or- that the death of Christianity is thodoxy, but Father Alexander took needed, so that Christ would be this a step further to link kenosis with resurrected. The deadly weakness the voluntary shedding of ecclesial of Christianity lies in only one pride. In his journal entry for Novem- thing—forgetting and neglect- ber 18, 1974, he wrote: ing Christ. In the Gospel, Christ always says “I”—He says about On the eve of the Christmas fast, Himself that he will come back we are trying to preach to the in glory, as a king. One must love students why the coming of God Him, expect Him, rejoice in Him into the world in the form of a and about Him. When nothing small child is not only a kenosis—a of Christianity will remain, only self-emptying of divinity—but the Christ will be visible; and neither most adequate revelation of God. revolution, nor Islam, nor hedo- In that Child, there is no need for nism will have any power left. strength, glory, “rights,” self-affir- Now is the time for the prayer, mation, authority or power (55– ‘Come, Lord Jesus . . . !’ (212) 56). But this dark conclusion should not Earlier in that same entry he wrote, be misunderstood. As Juliana Schme- “Christians are the first to live with mann said, “He was a builder rather pride, self-affirmation and the need to than a destructive force, and a preach- expand. Where can repentance come er of what Church is and could be, from, or self-limitation? ‘I’ might give if the Gospel were again an integral in, but ‘we’ will never give in because part of Church life in every detail.” ‘we’ are right—always right; could not Father Alexander did not want to be live a minute without our ‘right’” (55). boxed in by his critique of Orthodoxy or labeled a prophet or a radical re- former, any more than he wanted to be labeled a traditionalist. Instead I’ve looked briefly at Alexander Schme- he was committed to the unfinished, mann’s extensive critique of Orthodoxy open character of the Church as life and considered some possible avenues in Christ.

The Wheel 16 | Winter 2019 27 © 2019 The Wheel. I realized how difficult it is for me removing possible contradictions. May be distributed for ever to be wholly in one camp. In I think that openness must always noncommercial use. www.wheeljournal.com all that I love and consider mine— remain; it is faith, in it God is the Church, religion, the world found, who is not a “synthesis,” where I grew up and to which I but life and fullness (46). belong, I often see deficiencies and lack of truth. In all that I do Father Alexander’s legacy would be not like—radical ideas and convic- meaningless if he were only a cranky, tions—I see what is right, even if bitter critic. Those who know the relatively right. Within religion I full range of his writing know the feel stifled, and I feel myself a rad- joy and brightness of his eschato- ical “challenger.” But among chal- logical vision. But it is precisely his lengers I feel myself conservative love for Christ and the Church that and traditionalist. I cannot identi- gives the sharpness of his critique fy with any complete system with so much weight. Given the state of an integral world or an ideology. world Orthodoxy, and its persistent It seems to me that anything fin- and growing triumphalism, it seems ished, complete and not open to to me that Father Alexander’s ability another dimension is heavy and to see through the “thicket of idols” is self- destructive. I see the error of especially valuable today, and a com- any dialectics that proceed with fort to those who might otherwise thesis, antithesis and synthesis, despair.

The Very Rev. Dr. John A. Jillions is an associate professor of religion and culture at St. Vladimir’s Seminary and a former chancellor of the Orthodox Church in America. He holds a DMin from St. Vladimir’s and a PhD in New Testa- ment from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. He was a founding principal of the Institute for Orthodox Chris- tian Studies in Cambridge, England, and was an associate professor of theology at the Sheptytsky Institute for East- ern Christian Studies in Ottawa (now in Toronto). He has served parishes in Australia, Greece, England, Canada, and the United States.

28 Father Alexander Schmemann, Crestwood, c. 1978.

The Wheel 16 | Winter 2019 29