“Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” Jude 3.

Fr. Alexander Schmemann is an inevitable figure of influence in 20^th century Orthodoxy, most of all in America.

His well-known name has arisen once again, this time in connection to an article in The Wheel (a periodical) entitled “Thicket of Idols: Alexander Schmemann’s Critique of Orthodoxy.” The author of the article is Fr. John Jillions. 

The article lives up to its name and elucidates various critiques that Fr. Schmemann leveled against the Orthodox Church. The critiques are taken from his journal. In my mind, a journal is a personal thing. In it, one attempts to make sense of and wrestle with the many ideas and thoughts which are inevitable in this earthly existence. In it one may express oneself in a manner that is less formal and precise than in a public writing. Thus, many times, a journal reflects a very personal struggle and journey. And this must be allowed to a person. Yet, with the current article and, I suppose, the publishing of Fr. Schmemann’s journal, his personal struggles and thoughts are now public. Moreover, it seems clear that they may be intended by some for a certain end. It is in light of this that I am writing this article.

Fr. Jillions claims, “Schmemann’s fundamental criticism was that Orthodoxy had become an idol to itself. It had thus eclipsed Christ. And because of its allergy to self-criticism, Orthodoxy had become incapable of seeing, admitting and repenting of its fault.” He continues, “By taking the focus away from Christ, says Schmemann, church life itself was turned into an idol and became sin. ‘The depth and the newness of that sin is that the idol is the Church, the services, theology, piety, religion itself. It sounds like a cheap paradox, but the Church is most harmed and hindered by the Church itself, Orthodoxy by Orthodoxy, Christian life by piety, etc.’”

Obviously, this is a weighty assertion. Fr. Schmemann’s critiques must be evaluated in light of the teaching of the saints and the Scriptures. Fr. Jilions in his article claims that the Church has sinned, and among other things, it is proud, self-infatuated, and joyless.

There seems to be a clear and intentional blurring and muddling, a conflating, of the essential reality of the Church and its human interface. The Church in Her Scriptural vocation cannot “eclipse” Christ because, as the Scriptures testify, it is essentially – that is by nature – His Body and Bride (cf. Eph 1:23, 5:32-33; Col. 1:18). In fact, the whole testimony of the saints confirms the essential divine and perfect foundation of the Church (cf. 1 Tim 3:15). As the body cannot function without its head, so the Church cannot function without her Head, Who is Christ Jesus. This essential reality of the nature of the Church must be properly understood and realized. It is to this perfection that we are all called as members. Thus, breakdowns, failings, and sins happen not on the essential level of the Church but on the that of the members – this area is indeed open to critique. Are the members living in accord with the essence of Christ as revealed in His Body? The essential reality, also known as Holy Tradition, is the standard of the members of Christ the Lord. On the level of the member, one could choose to disregard some or a number of essential Gospel teachings. A person could even decide to utilize the message for one’s individual gain and aggrandizement. Any student of history knows that this has tragically happened many times. This does not mean that the core essence is faulty but rather that a member (or members) failed in his (or their) vocation to actively live in the light of Christ in His Body.

Let us remember that Christ the Lord rebuked the Pharisees and others for their total lack of understanding with regard to the essential reality of the Law, yet in no wise did Christ Jesus ever say that the Law was, due to the failings of the Pharisees, at fault. It was rather the fact that the Pharisees had through their own will refused to honor and live by the standard of God’s Law, as reveled up to that point. The Law was good, as the Scriptures testify, the Pharisees abused it and used it hypocritically. Thus, we may conclude something vital, the Church is good, but sometimes men use it hypocritically.

We should be open to critiques: do we love our titles too much, our “awards,” our “rights” and standings as various local churches, thrones, and so on? Are not such strivings for the “first place” simply revelation of our weakness and that sometimes we are of the spirit of the “gentile rulers” (cf. Matt. 20:25ff)? Are odd and local customs at times given a Gospel like authority? It is quite possible. Yes, sometimes we, as fallen members, can stand in the door and not allow others to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet the door and the blocking thereof must never be confused with the Kingdom itself – the Church (As the actions of the Pharisees must not be confused with the Law). Weeds in the wheat field do not change the fact that it remains essentially a wheat field. We know the weeds will ultimately be removed at the Last Judgment (cf. Matt. 13:24ff).

To muddle the human failing and behavior of the members with the essence of the Church is a grave mistake and danger. For in doing so we then impute sin to the Mystical Body of Christ, sins which in reality are not hers but those of her struggling members. The essence exists so that the inevitable human failing may be properly critiqued and healed. I was surprised to find that Fr. Schmemann seems not to have made this vital distinction, he says (as quoted in the article), “On the one hand, Orthodox triumphalistically claimed exclusive possession of the ancient tradition. On the other hand, the consciousness and behavior of the Orthodox Christians belied this claim and showed them every bit as compromised to secularism as the Western forms of Christianity that they criticized.”

The lack of consciousness, as he claims, and even at times unchristian behavior, coupled with, it must be noted, a compromise with the spirit of secularism purportedly displayed by various Orthodox persons, is not the result of “triumphalistically” claiming to have “exclusive possession of the ancient tradition.” Rather, I would put forth, it is the result of not living in accordance with that rich life and tradition that is energized by the Holy Spirit.. (The Wheel together with other groups such as Public Orthodoxy, sic, and Studies for Orthodoxy at Fordham should take note of the phrase “compromised to secularism,” as it seems that one of their primary functions is to facilitate such compromise). Yet it may be good for us to remember that we must be Christians, and if we hold the Faith in a cold and harsh manner, then we indeed may simply make ourselves compromised. Yet, the issues is not the victorious fullness of Faith as revealed by our Lord Jesus, but again the struggle of the members of the Body of Christ to properly energize this faith.

Is holding to the truth in love triumphalistic?

Christ the Lord claims exclusive Lordship, there are no other gods beside Him. He also claims the exclusive revelation of Truth, for He is Truth. He did so that humanity might be saved, and this salvation happens exclusively through Him. “No one comes to the Father except through Me” (cf. Jn. 14:6) No right-thinking Christian would claim that Christ the Lord was triumphalistic in His claim, nor would one disregard His claim because of the failings of his disciples (two even betrayed him; one repented and one committed suicide). The weak behavior and mindset of his disciples were the result of their lack of transformation at that point in their lives, their own struggle in the faith, and not a lack in the essential life of Christ flowing through His Church. The Church, His Body, as a divine reality, continues this exclusive claim of Her Lord. Yet, even the common failings of Christians in no wise inhibits their ability to proclaim the Truth, for this Truth is not “of” them but is a Divine Revelation. Broken as we may be, we must lovingly and humbly call our fellow humans into the fullness of Truth in Christ Jesus.

Further, any dichotomy that is created between Christ and the Church is completely wrong and foreign to the Scripture and the ethos of True Christianity. The alluring claim to be “simply returning to Christ” is rife with dangers. Every Protestant denomination has “a simple return to Christ” at the root of its claim for self-assertion. In fact, the dialectic of Christ vs. Church is Protestant in origin. Fr. Schmemann is speaking from the spirit of the 19th and 20th century, one which was at times obsessive about finding some elusive “real Christ,” who had been purportedly obscured by “Churchiness.” Yet this claim is horribly ambiguous, for Christ can easily become anything which the promoter wants Him to be (as modernity has made evident). The result is that in our day we find a vast array of “christs” proclaiming a wide variety of contradictory messages. But the True Christ said, “For many will come, saying ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray” (Mat. 24:5). Inevitably, systems created around “revelations” of new “christs” will act to, in the long run, completely distort the truth of Jesus Christ.

What is to be the guide of this “rediscovery of Truth” once the “shell of tradition” has been shed, as suggested by the article? Who, or what, will be the arbitrator of what is “genuine?” Is it Fr. Schmemann’s own personal opinions about the Church, liturgy, and history? Is it The Wheel, or some group of scholastics? If so, who imparted to them such sweeping authority? Or is it more likely that those who desire to “update” Orthodoxy to have a “voice in the world” will use Schmemann as a poster-boy for their agenda? Could it be that certain forces desire Orthodoxy to make itself more “relevant,” and to do so, they must first convince Orthodox Christians that we are too overburdened with “shells of tradition” and “idols;” in fact, to be a true player in the world we must shed these constricting shells! Don’t be old fuddy-duddies, get in step with the times! Yet, may I venture to ask, where did they find this in the Scriptures or the writings of the saints?

The problem resides not in true Tradition, which is the vital life of the Church (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15), but in the age-old problem of broken humanity and its ability, or lack thereof, to live and be transformed by the life of Christ in His Church. It is possible though! The saints prove it!

Another problem is that the fallen world simply does not want the message of Christ in His Church. This must be seriously taken into account. The world, as denoted by St. John the Theologian, is opposed to the message of the Gospel. Why? Because the Church truly and prophetically proclaims that this fallen world is fading away, and all the glory thereof, and that only the Glory of Christ abides forever. The Church testifies that the system of the world is in sin and needs Christ Jesus. The world hates this testimony and therefore, as Christ Himself said, hates True Christianity, Orthodoxy (Cf. Jn 15;18ff). We would do well to remember, “If you were of the world, the world would love you, but because you are not of the world … therefore the world hates you.” “Friendship with the world is enmity with God” (cf. James 4:4) It is the eternal job of the Church and Her faithful children to profess this testimony regardless of its popularity or lack thereof. The Church has not lost step with the times, the times have openly and willingly thrown off and rejected the testimony of the Church about Christ the Lord. The times have lost step with God.

Grant it, I am not able to sit down with Fr. Schmemann and ask him to clarify some of his thoughts, nor I figure is anyone else, but it is my belief that a number of his personal thoughts as expressed in his journal should be simply left at that. It would be a great wrong to misuse or misapply his very visceral contemplations and struggles. But these ideas have not been left in a journal. The most troubling of them is the final section of Fr. Jillion’s article in which he states,  In Fr Alexander’s eschatological vision of the Kingdom of God only the death of Christianity as we know it can triumph over its destructive inner forces. (then he quotes Fr. Schmemann, my note)

The ‘death of Christianity!’ It sounds horrible. But is it so? It constantly seems to me (and gives me inner light and joy) that the death of Christianity is needed, so that Christ would be resurrected. The deadly weakness of Christianity lies in only one thing—forgetting and neglecting Christ. In the Gospel, Christ always says “I”—He says about Himself that he will come back in glory, as a king. One must love Him, expect Him, rejoice in Him and about Him. When nothing of Christianity will remain, only Christ will be visible; and neither revolution, nor Islam, nor hedonism will have any power left. Now is the time for the prayer, ‘Come, Lord Jesus…!

What are these “destructive inner forces?” “Inner forces” seems to denote essential forces; St. Justin Popovich calls the Church Theanthropic. Its essential inner forces are divine in origin, for Christ Jesus is the founder and sustainer of His Church and the Holy Spirit moves and gives Her life. The inner forces are always essentially life-giving and creative for they flow from Christ Who is the Head. I have in all my reading never encountered any saint calling for the “death of Christianity” (does Schmemann mean the Church?). I have read numerous secularists, revolutionaries, and liberal “Christian” scholastics making such a call but never a saint of the Church. This concept of the “death of Christianity” has no root in the Orthodox Church, it is a foreign concept and a potentially toxic one. Although, of course, one desires to see Christ the Lord, this only happens not through the “death of Christianity” but through the death of the old man and its passions and the resurrection of the new man in the image of Christ. I can sympathize with Fr. Schmemann’s intent, yet he makes a fatal error in the mode by which he seeks to reach his goal – “the death of Christianity.” For out of the ashes of this dead Christianity what phoenix-christ will arise? Contrary to his stated desire, it will not be the Christ of Truth but rather a christ of the fallen world. For, the desire of the world, moreover secularism, is to destroy the old ways and from the ashes build a new world, new gods, and new christs.

This eschatological vision of Fr. Schmemann does not align with that of the saints and thus must be discarded, with all due respect. Yet it seems to be this very point which various “progressive” elements desire to exploit, they would love to see the death of Orthodoxy so that they may rebuild it in their own image. Do not be fooled, everyone claims, from the least Protestant group to the Pope, to be building in the image of Christ (it sounds so much better than saying “I want to do it my way”) and only by evaluating these claims in light of the life – the Tradition – of the Church, the Body of Christ, is one able to discern what are true and false Christs.

Now, Fr. Jillions immediately hedges his bets by saying, “this dark conclusion (the death of Christianity) should not be misunderstood …” Then why introduce it? 

Contrary to Fr. Jillions conclusion, it seems that Fr. Schmemann did not see clearly through the “thicket of idols,” as the article implies. His wandering critiques are ambivalent and unprepared to give solutions. Thus, they do not seem to be a trustworthy platform from which to address the “state of world Orthodoxy.”

The clear testimony of the Saints is that the true message of the Gospel, as alive in the essence of the Church, Holy Orthodoxy, is the eternal standard for all ages. This is the firm foundation from which to work; one proven through the ages. Christ our Lord has indeed come to give us life, and life most abundantly. I suppose that we may hear Fr. Schmemann’s heartfelt plea to not obscure Christ Jesus, for truly this would be a great tragedy. I suppose that we should hear the warning that are indeed worthy of hearing, but we must be very careful in the mode and application. For when the Church is identified with the sins of fallen members, and then such an identification is use to champion a “rediscovery of truth,” something very different may indeed take place.

Since this blog is already on the long-side (and I have not the time to address every aspect of the themes presented in the article in question, I have only made some highlights and observations) I will end with a quote from St. Theophan the Recluse, in which he responds to the idea that the Church must update herself,

I even consider it my duty to comment on it and to correct it, since – even though it perhaps goes against your desire and conviction – it comes from something sinful, as though Christianity could alter its doctrines, its canons, its sanctifying ceremonies to answer to the spirit of each age and adjust itself to the changing tastes of the sons of this century, as though it could add or subtract something. 

Yet, it is not so. Christianity must remain eternally unchanging, in no way being dependent on or guided by the spirit of each age. Instead, Christianity is meant to govern and direct the spirit of the age for anyone who obeys its teachings.