Price: $29.00

SKU: PB-WAORNO

Publisher: SVS Press, Yonkers, New York, 2015

ISBN: 978-0-88141505-6 Size: 6 x 9 Pages: 384

http://www.svspress.com/the-ways-of-orthodox-theology-in-the-west/

The Ways of Orthodox Theology in the WestThe story of Orthodox Christianity’s relationship with the Westplays a pivotal role in the construction of Orthodox identity. That story took a decisive turn in the twentieth century. Suddenly, Orthodox thinkers, particularly those from the formerRussian Empire, found themselves living in foreign lands and looking at Orthodoxy through the other end of the looking glass— the West. It was from there that Orthodox theologians were faced with the greatest challenge to their collective religiousidentity: What did it mean to be Eastern Orthodox outside of the East?

"This book is a powerful witness to the dynamism of the Orthodox tradition and the great fruits it bore in the twentieth century. Here we can see how the legacy of Byzantine Orthodoxy spread and then the transition to the consciousness that Orthodoxy must always be local and the attempts and hopes to make this a reality, together with the engagement with modernity and Western theology and philosophy..." 

      — From the Foreword by Fr John Behr

AUTHORS

IVANA NOBLE is Professor of Ecumenical Theology at the Protestant Theological Faculty of Charles University, Prague, and responsible for a research project on Orthodoxy in the West, in which all four authors participate.

KATERINA BAUEROVÁ teaches at the Protestant Theological Facultyof Charles University, Prague, where she also earned her doctorate.

TIM NOBLE taught missiology at the International Baptist Theological Seminary in Prague.

PARUSH PARUSHEV is former Academic Dean and Rector of the International Baptist Theological Seminary in Prague.

Contents

Foreword (John Behr)IntroductionChapter 1: Religious, cultural and political development of Orthodoxlands till the Fall of the Byzantine Empire (Ivana Noble and Parush Parushev)

Byzantine roots of OrthodoxyMission of Cyril and MethodiusChristianisation of RussiaPower struggle within Eastern Christianity and the Great SchismRussia in the period of the Mongolian KhanateHellenism v. hesychasm: in search of the Byzantine identityThe Hesychasm of the Slav ChristiansFall of Constantinople and the Ottoman YokeOrthodoxy in Greece and in the Balkans after the fall of the Ottoman Empire

Chapter 2: Russian Orthodoxy on the journey to modernity (Ivana Noble)

The Rise of Russia as the “Third Rome”Autocephality of the Russian Church and her turn to the WestOld BelieversReforms, decline and new prospectsRediscovery of hesychasmSlavophilesThe Transition from scholasticism to neo-patristicsReligious grounding of social reformSophiology

Chapter 3: Orthodox mission in America and Western Europe before 1920 (Tim Noble)

Sources of inspirationThe Beginnings of Mission in Alaska Bishop InnocentConsequences of the sale of Alaska Theology of mission in Orthodox AlaskaMission in the United States The Development of Russian Orthodoxy in AmericaSyrian Orthodoxy and Tikhon’s dream of a pan-Orthodox AmericaThe Greek Orthodox Church in AmericaOrthodoxy in EuropeOrthodoxy in FranceOrthodoxy in GermanyOrthodoxy in BritainThe heritage of mission, ethnic divisions and pan-Orthodox vision

Chapter 4: Confrontation of Russian Orthodox Church with the revolution and with the new regime (Ivana Noble)

Russian society and church on the eve of the First World WarSituation of the church during the civil war and famine The beginning of GULAGRenovationist versus Patriarchal churchDeclaration of loyalty and the formation of the underground churchThe impact of jurisdictional changes in the Diaspora on the situation in Russia The question of the future of Russian Orthodoxy

Chapter 5: The Ways from the Diaspora to local churches(Kateřina Bauerová a Tim Noble)

Forced emigration and the ‘philosophers’ boat’ “Russia outside Russia” in BerlinHelp from the Orthodox Slavs: Belgrade and Sofia “Russian Action” in Masaryk’s Czechoslovakia YMCA and the Russian student movement

Russian ParisTheological Institutes of St. Serge and St. Denis Russian Orthodoxy in America after the First World WarThe influence of the situation in Russia on jurisdictional changes in AmericaSevered roots of common missionThe Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North AmericaTheological Seminaries of St Vladimir and Holy CrossMulti-national Orthodoxy in FranceStruggle for the unity of Orthodoxy in BritainChanges in the Orthodox Diaspora in GermanyPlurality against unity in church organisation, unity againstplurality in theology?

Chapter 6: The Experience and theology of the Russian immigrants(Kateřina Bauerová)

The beginning of the journey“The seal of homelessness”: The Losskys and Bulgakovs in CzechoslovakiaIntegration into the life in PragueDivided religious situationThe beginning of a further journey “The contrast of different worlds”: Nicolas Berdyaev inBerlin Meeting together in Paris: The Berdyaevs, the Bulgakovs and theLosskysStruggle with the break-up of belonging caused byjurisdictional division of jurisdictionsConflict between sophiology and neo-patristicsThe end of one stage of life in emigration

Chapter 7: „Going even to the very end“: Witness of the martyrs(Kateřina Bauerová)

Florensky’s family islandConcrete forms of spiritual and intellectual lifeThe search for the wholeness of truth in anti-nominalism “Gulag, this is the heart of Russia”Russian beginnings of the life-journey of Mather MariaSkobtsova Journey toward a new type of monasticism in emigrationThe war and the challenges to stand on the side of the victimsSources of openness and freedom in the theology of AlexanderMenMen’s Priestly service in the time of totalitarianismFreedom for unity, unity in pluralityRoots growing into other worlds

ConclusionBibliography

Index

FOREWORDJohn Behr

The tradition, theology, and lived reality of the Orthodox Church is

perhaps best compared to a symphony, diachronically and

synchronically polyphonous, comprised of different voices, each

lending their own particular tonality and timbre, in a composition

not composed by any particular voice but by God who, as St Irenaeus

of Lyons put it, “harmonizes us to the symphony of salvation.” No

movement is a repeat of what went before, but neither does any

strike out to play its own tune. To understand the dynamics of this

symphony, to see each voice in its own place and in the larger

context of the symphony as a whole, and to bring to light its

variegated riches, requires both comprehension of the broad sweep of

history and the focused histories of particular figures, and also

sympathetic understanding of the theological, ecclesial, and social

issues that are being worked out through these eras and life-spans.

This is exactly what the authors of this book have offered us; not

simply a sketch of Orthodox dogmatic theology as presented by

various leading theologians of the past century, nor simply a

history of events and figures, but rather the symphony of orthodoxy

as it has been played over the last centuries. Their intention had

initially been to study the remarkable phenomenon of the way in

which émigré theologians were forced to think through again their

identity and their voice in exile, a situation with which Orthodoxy

had not dealt for many centuries, and which they did with such

vigor, courage, openness, and intellectual and spiritual integrity.

But as they continued their investigations, it became clear that it

was necessary to take a longer historical perspective and include a

broader geographical reach to do justice to this movement of the

symphony. Although any aspects of this era have been studied, and

increasingly so, this book is the first attempt to convey the multi-

faceted ways that Orthodox theology has taken over recent centuries,

played out in one volume.

The change from the twentieth century to the twenty-first, though

just a calendar day, opens up a vista with a properly historical

perspective. For those within the Orthodox tradition, the lived

memories are often still too close to home for them to be able

assess individual aspects or the broader canvas. That scholars with

theological and historical sensitivity and insight—as Ivana Noble,

Kateřina Bauerová, Tim Noble and Parush Parushev clearly are—have

taken this upon themselves, is a wonderful contribution to

scholarship and to the Orthodox tradition. Here we can see how the

legacy of Byzantine Orthodoxy spread to the Slavic lands and then to

the West, with the revival of hesychasm and the renewed attention to

the Fathers, and then the transition from a diaspora in exile to the

consciousness that Orthodoxy must always local and the attempts and

hopes to make this a reality, together with the engagement with

modernity and Western theology and philosophy, as this was lived out

particular figures, such as Bulgakov, Berdyaev, Florovsky, Mother

Maria, Schmemann, Meyendorff, Romanides, and Staniloae. This book is

a powerful witness to the dynamism of the Orthodox tradition and the

great fruits it bore in the twentieth century. Now that that

particular era has concluded (though not, of course, the issues with

which it grappled), by rehearsing its score, this book will surely

also contribute in its own way to the symphony as it is played in

the twenty-first century.

Introduction

How did Orthodox theology in the 20th century come to the West?

How was it linked to home churches which experienced ruptures

that led to the disappearance of old ways of life, and only

rarely to the discovery of new ways? What treasures from the

tradition belonged to the fundamental outlook of people whose

past bore with it such a great burden that they had to learn to

look forward with hope? It is with questions such as these that

our book will deal, leading the reader from the legacy of

Byzantium, through the mission to the Slavs, but also through

the Mongol Khanate and the Ottoman Sultanate, to the present.

In it we will trace how the spiritual, ecclesial, cultural and

intellectual life of Orthodoxy came to the West thanks to the

first modern missions, but also especially because of the

forced emigration of thousands of believers, who sought in

their new surroundings ways of understanding and passing on the

inheritance of faith and hope they had brought with them, and

ways of opening up the new possibilities that grew out of them.

On the cover of the book there is a mosaic of characters who

have contributed to the formation of Orthodoxy in the West,

either because their influence transcended boundaries and

divisions or directly because of what they lived through.

Hopefully after reading our book, the reader will be able to

match fates and names to more of these faces. Also on the cover

is a picture of the church of St. Seraphim at 91 rue Lecourbe

in the 15th arrondissement of Paris. This place fascinated us from

the very first time we visited it. From the street you enter

through a small passageway where dustbins are usually stored.

The passageway opens into another world. You see a wooden

chapel with a small blue dome reminiscent of a Christmas tree

bauble. Inside the church are two trees, one dead, one living,

both built into the structure. The church was deliberately

built around them, apparently when both were still alive. In

the liturgy French and Church Slavonic are used

interchangeably. Among the congregation are young French

families, students from many countries, Slav immigrants and

Arab Christians. Fr. Nicolas Černokrak, the then dean of the

Institut St. Serge, who invited us to the church, where he

regularly serves, introduced us to people who carried from

their childhood memories of how their families fled from Russia

through Czechoslovakia, where President Masaryk greatly helped

them. Not far from the church, at 77 rue de Lourmel, lived

Mother Maria Skobtsova, who, along with Fr. Dimitry Klepinin,

cared for the neighbourhood poor both before and during the

war. In the church there are icons she painted, liturgical

vestments which she sewed, and people ready to show you both

and tell you what they remember of those times.

We wanted to photograph the church and put the photo on the

cover of the book, but, despite the best efforts of our

friends, Kristýna Orbdliková and Fr. Christophor Panaitescu,

who are much more talented photographers than we are, we became

aware that our experience of the dead and living trees inside

the church could not be caught in that way. A so instead of a

photograph there is a drawing which is based on their photos

and in which, even if not exactly, is contained not only what

we saw but also what it meant for us.

The symbol of journey is one we have borrowed from some of the

authors with whom we will deal in the book. One of them is

Nikolai Berdyaev, who in 1926 founded a journal in Paris called

The Way (Put’)1 in which he tried to give a space to all streams

of Russian émigré Orthodoxy, so that all could enjoy a free and

public debate, sharing their problems with the church, and

their spiritual, theological and philosophical ideas. The

symbol of Ways is also found in the two volume work published

by Fr. George Florovsky in Paris in 1937-1938 and containing a

fundamental critique of Russian religious thinking, entitled

Ways of Russian Theology.2 In this work Florovsky dealt with the

question of why in attempts to transpose the tradition through

the key of modern Western philosophy these ways ended up

deviating. Both these senses of journey – Florovsky’s critical

understanding and Berdyaev’s free and open one – are taken up

with gratitude in the title of our work, The Ways of Orthodox

Theology in the 20th Century in the West.

This book has a long pre-history. For over a decade some of us

have lectured on the theology of those 20th century Orthodox

writers who, rooted in their own tradition, entered into

dialogue with Western thought. These were mainly theologians

1 The full title was Puť: Organ russkoj religioznoj mysli [Путь: орган русской религиозноймысли].We look in more detail at this journal in Chapter 6, in the parts“Meeting together in Paris: The Berdyaevs, the Bulgakovs and the Losskys”and “Struggle with the collapse of belonging caused by jurisdictionaldivision”.2 George Florovsky, Puti Russkogo bogoslovija. YMCA Press, Paříž, 1937. [ПутиРусского Богословия. YMCA Press, Париж, 1937 = Georges Florovsky, Ways of RussianTheology. Nordland Pub. Co., Belmont, 1979].

from Russian émigré families who lived in the West, such as Fr.

George Florovsky, Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Fr. John Meyendorff

or Paul Evdokimov, but also there were others who through their

experience of totalitarian regimes came to a radically non-

totalitarian understanding of Christian faith and praxis,

people such as Fr. Dumitru Stãniloae or Fr. Alexander Men and

even Western converts to Orthodoxy such as Olivier Clément or

Metropolitain Kallistos Ware.

Their theology which creatively developed the legacy of the

Church Fathers allowed us to value the eschatological

perspective which we see in icons, where the determining

perspective is given neither by the writer of the icon, nor by

its observer, but by the One who speaks through it. This is the

iconic understanding of tradition, in which perspective is

reversed and in which God, not humanity, is the point of

departure. In his mercy God gives humanity a share in the

divine mystery, in the divine communion of the Holy Trinity. He

irrupts into human history as its beginning and its fulfilment,

reveals from his side his will and opens the way to conversion,

a way which leads to communion with God and with each other, so

that united with the whole of creation we may be fully human,

children of God.

The discourse of the theologians mentioned above and their life

stories led us however to seeing the need to fill out their

eschatological starting point concerning “the human way of

understanding God’s action in history”.3 The attempt to

3 See Pavel Ambros, “Návrat k pramenům a postavení křesťana v modernímsvětě: Poznámky k diskuzi o povaze vzthu metodologie církevních dějin apraktické teologie”, in Jiří Hanuš (ed.), Eseje o povaze církevních dějin, CDK, Brno,

understand more the complicated context in which the lives and

theology of Orthodox thinkers in the West were enmeshed led us

to valuing historical perspectives. We needed to complement

eschatology with history and move from the past to the future,

concentrating on the development, without however feeling the

need to accept modern concepts of progress, rightly criticised

by Orthodox theology.4

In our study we needed to investigate what preceded the

rediscovery of the legacy of the Church Fathers in modern times

and what happened in connection with this discovery. We needed

to look at the church, society and culture in which the changes

in theological paradigm were played out, from Orthodox neo-

scholasticism dependent on Roman Catholic and Protestant

theologies to an independent creative expression of tradition.

Researching the changes in theology and church practice in pre-

revolutionary Russia and subsequently in the jurisdictionally

divided diaspora showed us that if we want to at least

partially understand the specific theological history of modern

Orthodoxy we have to return to its roots. In terms of Russian

Orthodoxy this also meant investigating at least in general

outline the other branches which grew out of these roots and

which became entangled with Russian Orthodoxy. It was then

necessary that at least in broad sweeps we looked also at the 2012, p.9-24, here p.16.4 Cf Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition I: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). University Of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1975, p.7-8; Credo: Historical andTheological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven – London, 2003, p.21; Andrew Louth, “Is development ofDoctrine a Valid Category for Orthodox Theology?”, in Valerie Hotchkiss –Patrick Henry (eds.), Orthodoxy and Western Culture: Collection of Essays honoring JaroslavPelikan on his Eightieth Birthday, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, 2005,p.45-63.

Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian stories before and after the fall

of the Ottoman Empire, as well as at the Romanian situation.5

Alongside this we also became aware that Orthodoxy in the West

did not arrive only after the revolution in Russia and that it

would be necessary to research in more detail the history and

contribution of the Orthodox missions in the past.

Even if our task expanded, our main interest remained the same.

This was to examine the people by whom and the ways in which

spiritually and intellectually integrated theological concepts

were created, in which critical thought communicated with

liturgical practice and mystical experience and tradition with

modern and postmodern culture, and the Christian East with the

Christian West.

For the historical self-reflection of Orthodox theology and the

church, we have relied on previous studies. Here there is not

room to mention all of them and references will be found in the

footnotes in the individual chapters. Now we can simply

summarise briefly the process by which we have tried to follow

the development of the understanding of Orthodoxy’s own

theological and ecclesial history in modern times and to tell

5 Here we encountered the limit of what can be fitted into one, albeitcollective, book. We regret the absence in the book of the historical storyand profile of Albanian and Montenegrin Orthodoxy as well as theconflictual Macedonian question. Basic historical information about theseareas and their religious, cultural and national development can be foundin Jan Rychlík et al., Mezi Vídní a Cařihradem: Utváření balkánských národů. Vyšehrad,Praha, 2009. We have also not looked at the history and theology of theNear Eastern (Oriental) Orthodox Churches and theological schools, eventhough such an overview would also be enriching, given that they and theirheritage are an integral part of Orthodoxy in the West. Here we can pointto the work of Monika Šlajerová, Palestinská církev dnes: Politická a teologickáproblematika na pozadí situace církví v Sýrii, Libanonu a Jordánsku. Pavel Mervart, ČervenýKostelec, 2009.

this history from several sides at once, perhaps like a cubist

painter, friend of the iconographer, wanting to catch one image

from different points of view. Because we wanted to tell the

story of Russian emigrés and the multi-streamed theology of

renewal which they brought to the West, we needed at least at a

basic level to understand and make clear the process by which

Russian Orthodoxy was formed, both in continuity and

discontinuity with Byzantine Orthodoxy. Into this process other

voices and perspectives entered. In order that we could ever

finish the book, we could include only some of them and within

them we did not have space for the playing out of the

cacophonous and symphonic tones. Alongside Russian Orthodoxy

references will also be found in the book to Greek, Bulgarian,

Serbian and Rumanian Orthodoxy.

We have followed the historical self-reflection of Orthodoxy

encountering the West in modern times through the Berlin

lectures of the Bulgarian Professor Stefan Cankov from Sofia,

collectively published in Czech as Pravoslavné křesťanství východní:

Jeho podstata a současný stav.6 A more detailed exposition of the

history of modern Russian thought is to be found in Fr. George

Florovsky, in his critical work Ways of Russian Theology,7 and in

Nikolai Onufrijevich Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy.8 A further

attempt at a self-understanding of the legacy is found in the

6 See Stefan Cankov, Pravoslavné křesťanství východní: Jeho podstata a současný stav. Ligapravoslavné kultury, Vyškov na Moravě, 1931. We thank Dilian Nikolčev ofthe Sofia Theology Faculty for a rare copy of this book.7 See Florovsky, Puti russkogo bogoslovija.8 See Nikolaj Onufrijevich Losskij, Istorija russkoj filosofii. Svarog i K., Moskva,2000. [История русской философии. Сварог и К, Москва, 2000 (poprvé vyšlo1951) = Dějiny ruské filosofie. Refugium, Velehrad, 2004].

anthology edited by Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Ultimate Questions,9,

which presents and to a certain extent harmonises the different

streams of pre-revolutionary philosophy and theology which came

with the emigrants from Russia to the West. John Meyendorff

picked up on his work in his studies Byzantine Theology and

Byzantium and the Rise of Russia.10 In these works he attempted to link

with historical precision Russian religious thought and

Byzantine theology, with the older heritage, which, according

to him and to other representatives of the neopatristic school,

can be held in a synthesis which must then have a fundamental

influence on church practice and theology in any period.11

Among contemporary Russian works we have made use of the book

by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Volokolamsk, Orthodox

Christianity: Vol 1. The History and Canonical Structure of the Orthodox Church,12

which concentrates on the prehistory of modern Orthodoxy and

thus places contemporary theology and the present church

situation into a broader context.

9 See Alexander Schmemann (ed.), Ultimate Questions: An Anthology of Modern RussianReligious Thought. Mowbrays, London – Oxford, 1965.10 See John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes.Fordham University Press, New York, 1974; Byzantium and the Rise of Russia: A Study ofByzantino-Russian Relations in the Fourteenth Century. CUP, Cambridge – London – NewYork, 1981.11 The following studies examine this theme in more detail: Ivana Noble,“History Tied Down by the Normativity of Tradition? (Inversion ofPerspective in the Orthodox Theology, its Challenges and its Problems)”, inLieven Boeve et al. (eds.), Tradition and the Normativity of History. 2 Vols. Peeters,Leuven, forthcoming 2012; “Patristic Synthesis or Non-Synthetic Dialectics?A Critical Evaluation of John Meyendorff‘s Contribution”, in Joost vanRossum – Goran Sekulovski (eds), The Legacy of Fr John Meyendorff, Scholar andChurchman (1926-1992). YMCA, Paříž, forthcoming.12 Ilarion Alfejev, Pravoslavije I: Istorija, kanoničeskoje ustrojstvo i veroučenije PravoslavnojCerkvi. Serenskij Monastyr, 2008. [Иларион Алфеев, Православие I: История,каноническое устройство и вероучение Православной Церкви. Серенский Монастырь, 2008= Hilarion Alfeyev, Orthodox Christianity: Vol.1 The History and Canonical Structure of theOrthodox Church. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, 2011].

From the Greek setting we have worked with sources which employ

a critical understanding which establishes Orthodox identity as

something that must necessarily be in opposition to modernity

or postmodernity and to the West. We have proceeded from the

theologians of the neopatristic synthesis, Fr. John Romanides,

Metropolitan John Zizioulas and Christos Yannaras, whose book

Orthodoxy and the West13 has brought forth a whole series of

significant reactions from the contemporary generation of Greek

Orthodox theologians, expressed for example in the book

Orthodox Constructions of the ‘West’,14 but also in conferences organised

by Volos Academy, who kindly passed on to us their materials.15

From Serbia we have made good use of a short but important

study by Fr. Radovan Bigović,16 The Orthodox Church in the 21st Century,17

which gives a contextual explanation of contemporary problems

of nationalism, religious tolerance, ecumenical relations,

social engagement and political stance, which enter into

dialogue with tradition. As far as Romania goes, we have rather

drawn on studies which have enabled to see the historical

situation through figures such as Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae and

13 See Christos Yannaras, Orthodoxy and the West: Hellenic Self-identity in the Modern Age.Holy Cross Orthodox Press, Brooklyn, MA, 2006.14 See George Demacopoulos – Aristotle Papanikolaou (eds.), OrthodoxConstructions of the ‘West’. Fordham University Press, New York, 2012.15 These were lectures linked to the programmes “Theology, politics andcontemporary challenges” (2010/11), “Orthodoxy in the 21st Century”(2009/10), and to the conference “‘Neopatristic Synthesis’ in‘Postpatristic’ Theology: Can Orthodox Theology be Contextual?” (2010). Weare especially grateful here to the director of the academy, PantelisKalaitzidis, and his colleague Eleni Kassalouri.16 Fr. Radovan Bigović, one of the leading Serbian theologians, professor atthe Orthodox Theology Faculty in Belgrade, died suddenly on 31.5.2012, agedonly 56. We were unable to thank him for the material for writing thisbook, and thus we do so at least in this form.17 Radovan Bigović, The Orthodox Church in 21st Century. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung,Belgrade, 2009.

Petre Ţuţea.18 From Bulgaria we had a certain advantage in as

far as one member of our team of authors comes from that

country. Among other works mentioned in the individual

chapters, we have drawn on the work of Ivan Stoyanov, History of

the Bulgarian Revival.19

It is now time to say something about how we wrote this book.

The names of the main authors of each chapter are always placed

at the beginning. We all read each other’s chapters, corrected

mistakes, made additional comments and notes, and helped to

keep the focus on the main theme without getting lost in

details. We thought of ways to maintain any differences in

interpretation, if such an occasion arose, but in the end we

did not need to do this. On the other hand we had long debates

over the extent to which we should load the text with citations

of sources in original alphabets and how to transliterate

names. Thanks to the linguistic capabilities of Parush Parushev

we tended to a more complicated version, and so where sources

are in Russian, Bulgarian or Serbian, we give in the

bibliography the respective Cyrillic versions with Latin

transliteration and translation, hoping that this will be of

use to the reader who is interested in the field. As for the

names, we have to a large extent favoured the version which is

18 See Alexandru Popescu, Petre Ţuţea: Between Sacrifice and Sucide. Ashgate, Aldershot– Burlington, 2004; Lucian Turcescu (ed.), Dumitru Stăniloae: Tradition and Modernityin Theology. Center for Romanian Studies, Iaşi – Palm Beach, Oxford, 2002; Emil Bartos, Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology: An Evaluation and Critique of the Theology of Dumitru Stăniloae. Paternoster – Wipf and Stock, Eugene, 2007; Radu Bordeianu, Dumitru Stăniloae: An Ecumenical Ecclesiology. T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 2011.19 See Ivan Stojanov, Istorija na Balgarskoto Vazraždane. “IBIS”, Veliko Tarnovo,2010 [Иван Стоянов, История на българското Възраждане. Велико Търново,Издателство „ИВИС,” 2010, in Bulgarian = History of the Bulgarian Revival].

found in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Christian East,20 with thanks to

Pavel Ambros SJ for having partially solved the problem before

us. Those names which are not in the dictionary we have tried

to transliterate in a similar way. Kateřina Bauerová checked

the references to primary sources and prepared the subject

index, Tim Noble and Parush Parushev corrected the footnotes

and bibliography and Ivana Noble worked throughout on

structuring the book as well as giving a final check of the

content of the book so that the chapters came together as a

whole. She is also the main author of the introduction and the

conclusion.

The book is divided into seven chapters. In the first chapter

we will look at the religious, cultural and political

development of Orthodox countries after the fall of the

Byzantine Empire. In doing this we will try to show why the

variety of Orthodoxy and its inner conflicts, which we will see

later in the 20th century in the West, have a long and complex

history. In this chapter we will see how the Byzantine roots of

Orthodoxy are read backwards through the question of

succession. We will trace the role played in these processes by

Greek language and culture, the theocratic structure of the

empire based on Roman law and the liturgical, theological and

spiritual bases, confirmed by church councils. We will also

look at Byzantine mission. The history will be told from

different perspectives, Greek and Bulgarian, Serbian and

Russian. With the mission of Cyril and Methodius, so

fundamental for our country, we include in more detail in 20 See Edward G. Farrugia – Pavel Ambros, Encyklopedický slovník křesťankého Východu.Refugium, Olomouc, 2008.

footnotes Czech sources and references to the ongoing debate

about the legacy of Cyril and Methodius. Most attention however

will be given to Orthodox interpretations and their memory of

that form of mission which included new nations and cultures

within the mystery of salvation in Christ. We will follow how

it is narrated that this mission made the newly Christianised

nations equal to their older Christian brothers and sisters,

while at the same time maintaining a union between East and

West, that in their time was able to prevail over the demands

for a broadened sphere of influence. Further parts of the

chapter will follow the Christianization of Russia against the

backdrop of power struggles within the Eastern Christian world,

as well as the gradual alienation and subsequent schism between

Eastern and Western churches. The territorial, cultural and

political plurality of Orthodox countries after the fall of

Byzantium will be followed through crisis situations and their

often equally crisis resolutions: Russia in the time of the

Mongol Khanate, the conflict between hellenism and hesychasm in

the time preceding the fall of Byzantium, the conquest of

Constantinople and the Ottoman oppression, and all this again

from the perspective of the Greeks but also of the Bulgarians

and Serbs, and finally the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, the

coming into being of nation states and the struggle for the

shape of Orthodoxy in the Balkans.

In the second chapter we turn in more detail to Russia. We will

follow its rise at the end of the 15th century after the

casting off of the Mongol yoke, at a time when it was the only

independent Orthodox land, but also the paradoxes which were

present in its apocalyptic self-identification as the “Third

Rome”.21 We will see how at the time of gaining autocephality,

the Byzantine legacy faded into the background and was

unreflectedly replaced by the heritage of the Mongol Khanate on

the one side and by comparison to the West on the other. The

desire to appropriate for itself Western scholastic forms of

thought and ordering of church life were mixed with and

sometimes even led to the rejection and demonization of the

West, often an internalised vision of the West as a reference

point of mimetic desire.22 Through the changes in Russia from

the Palaiologoi to the Romanovs we will examine not only the

ecclesio-political situation but also the forms of theology and

spiritual life. We look behind the implementation of church

reforms and reactions to them, including the development of the

Old Believers’ movement which drew in part on an idealised

picture of the past, but also on the living out of a particular

spiritual practice and its theological reflection, which would

be the scene of struggle as Russia emerged into modernity. We

will look at the environment in which gradually a multi-sourced

renewal movement came into being, beginning with the

rediscovery of hesychasm, moving through Slavophilism to the

critique of neo-scholasticism and the return to the Church

21 In this second chapter we also show that the expression “Third Rome” isfound already before the raising of Moscow to the status of Patriarchateand consequently has its place in the self-identification of the Tsar assuccessor of the Roman Emperor and in the theocratic understanding ofRussian Orthodoxy. See Chapter 2, footnote 5.22 For a detailed analysis of the role of the West in the self-identification of Orthodoxy, for which there will not be sufficient spacein our book, it would be interesting to use the mimetic theory of RenéGirard, as he lays it out in his works Violence and the Sacred. John HopkinsUniversity Press, Baltimore – London, 1977; The Scapegoat, John HopkinsUniversity Press, Baltimore, 1985.

Fathers, to the search for a Christian base for social reforms

in the country and to sophiology. We demonstrate how the

different streams came together and acted as a mutual

inspiration, and in what way they contributed to the vision of

modern Orthodox mission, which subsequently formed the shape of

Orthodoxy in the West in the 20th century, albeit in absolutist

Russia on the path to historical tragedy they did not have time

to fully develop.

The third chapter takes us to Orthodox mission in America and

Western Europe before 1920. We begin with the Russian Orthodox

mission to Alaska and the Aleutian Isles at the turn of the

18th and 19th centuries, a period when the indigenous peoples

were being exploited by the Russian-America Company, which had

begun colonising the American continent in the previous

century. In the story of the monks from Valaam Monastery we see

the ways in which they related to their own tradition, to their

self-understanding of monastic life from its ancient Christian

sources, as a life linking being for God with being for the

other, where a special place was reserved for the poor and

oppressed,23 and also to Saints Cyril and Methodius and St.

Stephen of Perm, whose emphasis on the acceptance and

development of local cultures, on education and the building up

of local church structures inspired the missionary activity

among the Aleut, Yupik, Athaban and Tlingit. In the life and

work of the hermit St Herman and Bishop St Innocent

(Veniaminov), we see the struggles with the inculturation of

Orthodoxy first against attempts at Russification and then 23 See Michael Oleksa (ed.), Alaskan Missionary Spirituality. St Vladimir’s SeminaryPress, Crestwood, 2010, s.6-7.

after the sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867 against

attempts at Americanisation. We will see how this tradition

gave rise to a vision of a plural but united Orthodoxy on the

American continent, which was championed before the revolution

in Russia by Bishop Tikhon (Vasily Ivanovich Belavin), but also

how this pan-Orthodox vision was threatened from the very

beginning. The chapter will also sketch how Orthodoxy spread

through the United States especially through Greek, Slav and

Arab immigrants, who brought with them ties to their home

churches, to their own culture and language and formed their

“Orthodox identity” primarily on ethnic lines, and created

their own independent parishes, often without being aware of

relationships to others. The last part of the chapter looks at

the beginnings and form of Orthodox communities in Western

Europe, especially in France, Germany and Great Britain, to

which countries over the course of the 20th century a huge

number of people would come from Eastern Europe, from Greece

and from the Balkans.

In the fourth chapter on the confrontation between the Russian

Orthodox Church and the revolution and the Bolshevik regime we

turn first to Russia on the eve of the First World War. We go

on to examine the changes in the way the relationship between

church and state were organised and the attempt at church

reform, with the Moscow Council which began just before the

Bolshevik revolution, the election of the Moscow Metropolitan

Tikhon, formerly bishop in north America, and up to the renewal

of the office of Patriarch. We show the path taken by the

church during the revolution, the Civil War and the famine, its

violent annihilation, the first mass trials, the widespread

persecution of the church and attempts at breaking it up from

within. We will trace the changes in Communist anti-church

policy, the forms of interference and KGB infiltration, the

quick or gradual liquidation of class enemies, the setting up

of Gulag camps, from the time of Lenin, through Stalin,

Khrushchev and Brezhnev, but also how alongside and often

against each other there appeared in the church a broad and

often unnoticed range of positions from martyrs to

collaborators. It will be necessary at least briefly to

consider the Renovationist attempt to take the church over and

the division of the Patriarchal church (the Tikhonites) into

what we might call a middle-of-the-road group represented by

the later Patriarch Sergei (Stragorodski) and the underground

church which did not accept Sergei’s declaration of loyalty. Of

interest will be the theological arguments to legitimise

different stances vis-à-vis an atheist and violent state, but

also the conflicting understandings of what is simply basic and

non-negotiable for a Christian life. Alongside this examination

of the break-up of the structure of the life of the church in

Russia, its struggles for faith, humanity and hope in extreme

circumstances of threat, we will at least briefly attend to the

influence of jurisdictional changes in the diaspora, how the

life of the church in exile penetrated into the life of the

church at home, and what legacy this period left for the

Russian Orthodox Church.

With the fifth chapter, the perspective changes, as we look at

how the revolution in Russia influenced the situation of

Orthodoxy in the West. We concentrate on the journeys by which

the Western diaspora gradually changed from a church of

emigrants to local churches.24 We begin on the continent of

Europe, in Berlin, Sofia, Belgrade, Prague, the first temporary

homes of a great number of the escapees. We try to gain a

handle on the political, social, cultural and religious

situation in which the Russian communities sought to find their

space. We will look in greater detail at the aims, process and

results of Masaryk’s “Russian Action”,25 at a time when most

people still believed that the Bolshevik revolution would not

last for long, and that it made sense to prepare a new

generation of the Russian intelligentsia abroad which would

then play its part in the building up of a democratic Russia.

Using the example of the YMCA and Russian Student Movement we

will then see the move from this plan to the realisation that

the stay in the diaspora would be more permanent and that it

would be necessary to come to terms with and change the new

surroundings. The example of the main centre of Russia outside

of Russia, Paris, shows how a concentration on the past and

openness to the future struggled with each other, and how this

struggle fed into the formation of different jurisdictions and

into the forms of theological study. Here we will also examine

24 In the chapter itself we distinguish between the use of emigrant andimmigrant. We will use “emigrant” when the emphasis is on the leaving ofthe mother country, and, analogously to the term “homeless”, “immigrant”will be used when the emphasis is on the coming to new surroundings, whicha new home is to be built.25 As part of Masaryk’s help for Russians the Slavonic Library was foundedin Prague in 1924. We have gratefully availed ourselves of its resourcesfor the writing of this book. The library was originally known as “TheRussian Library of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs”. See Zdeňka Rachůnkováet al., Slovanská knihovna: průvodce. Národní knihovna České republiky Slovanskáknihovna, Praha, 2002.

which directions of the renewal of religious life and theology

from pre-revolutionary Russia found a new voice in the

diaspora. We then turn to the American continent. Here we look

at how the dream of a united mission continued and what

elements of it became incarnated in the creation of the local

autocephalous Orthodox Church of America (OCA). We will however

also consider the situation of the Greek archdiocese and other

ethnic groups who did not join the OCA. Here too we examine the

new theological schools which came into being in this

jurisdictionally divided situation. As we come back to Europe

at the end of the chapter, the underlying question is how it

was or was not possible to find unity amidst the jurisdictional

and ethnic interests which rather led to the fragmentation of

Orthodoxy in the West. Using as examples France, Britain and

Germany, we look at the changes in the situation since these

places were home to the first generation of Russian emigrants.

We return to that period in the sixth and seventh chapters, but

with a different methodology and with other questions.

Concentrating on “small histories of everyday life”,26 we try

26 We can refer here in terms of method to the school around the Annalesd‘histoire économique et sociale, which in the late 1920s, as Jiří Hanuš notes,shifted attention from the kind of facts which were previously consideredas historically significant and thus broadened the horizon of history toinclude neighbouring disciplines. Historians of this school regarded anyhuman activity as relevant and often chose previously unusual themes, suchas “the history of childhood, death, madness, climate, smell, gesture,women, reading and silence”. In place of a structural analysis, theyconcentrated on the dynamics of events in their long-term perspective andtried to look at history not from above but from below, through theimpressions of “how ordinary people lived”, recognising that they had togive up any pretence of objectivity, and that “our thoughts do not capturereality directly”, because “we always see from a particular biased point ofview”. Jiří Hanuš, Pozvání ke studiu církevních dějin. CDK, Brno, 1999, p.32-33.Kateřina Bauerová took the expression “small history of everyday life” fromJiřina Šiklová, see “Úvod” in Pavla Frýdlová (ed.), Všechny naše včerejšky,

to reconstruct in as much detail as possible the inner and

outer environment out of which grew the convictions, positions,

questions, anxieties, fears, readiness to take risks, to search

and experiment of the first generation of Russian emigrés. The

sixth chapter shows the life stories of the families of Nikolai

Lossky, Fr. Sergei Bulgakov and Nikolai Berdyaev. We travel in

their footsteps through Prague, Berlin and Paris, and

concentrate on their experiences as related in their diaries

and other sources with which we were unable to work in the

preceding chapters. We will also be able to look in more detail

at their theology, in which their experience is imprinted. At

the end of the chapter we turn to the conflict over sophiology

which broke out around Fr. Sergei Bulgakov in Paris and in

which Fr. George Florovsky and Vladimir Lossky were involved

as opponents. Here we follow the breakdown of the former unity

of the pre-revolutionary revival movements, and ask why in

emigration plurality became threatening for the representatives

of the neo-patristic synthesis. Tracking how their position

became if not the only acceptable one than at least dominant

for the subsequent generations of Orthodox theologians in the

West we will also ask what were the consequences of the loss of

the nourishment coming from the complementary alternatives.

The search for a lost cohesion takes us in the seventh chapter

to a detailed investigation of three martyrs, Fr. Pavel

Florensky, Mother Maria (Skobtsova) and Fr. Alexander Men. We

show how in situations27 in which they were forced to the

Gemi, Praha, 1988, p.7.27 Fr. Pavel Florensky died in the Gulag in 1937, though the exactcircumstances of his death remain unknown. Mother Maria was shot in 1945(the precise date is unknown) in the concentration camp at Ravensbrück,

margins, they still managed to maintain and cultivate unity in

plurality without losing contact with common theological roots.

The chapter starts with the ways Soloviev’s religious and

philosophical thought, in which wholeness dominated, became

formative for all three people mentioned above. At the same

time we show how Slavophile, hesychast and neo-patristic

influences were combined, just as they were an inspiration for

the movement seeking Christian roots for social reform. With

Florensky we will see the search for the wholeness of truth in

antinomianism and the emphasis on the need to turn away from

egoism. We will show that for him one of the forms of egoism

was being intellectually closed and so also how he suggested

avoiding this, and how Florensky brings into dialogue

everything that is real, true, good and beautiful, all

different fields of human endeavour. With Mother Maria we

concentrate on her understanding of ascetic non-possession,

related also to intellectual certainty and spiritual wealth. We

will see how she looks at new monasticism, inner freedom,

reminiscent of permanent pilgrimage more than guaranteed

existence, so that social reform comes from within, from a

radical option for the most needy. With Men we will find

theological arguments in favour of solidarity and cooperation

with others, expressed in an open attitude to Catholicism and

to other Christian confessions, whose theology he knew, and how

he made friendships with people so that together they could try

where she had been deported from France for organising help for Jews. Fr.Alexander Men was murdered at the very end of the communist regime, on 9thSeptember 1990, knocked down not far from home and killed by an axe. Themurderer was never caught and there is still disagreement over the circleshe came from and who hired him.

to overcome the legacy of schism through openness, shared

prayer and work.28 With him we see how plurality is maintained

in his interest in Christian unity, and how he used his

investigations of other religions, especially Judaism, to which

he had personal ties, as a defence of the place of the other,

who must not fall under the sway of state or even church

ideology. The chapter presents the theology and lives of these

three martyrs as part of the inheritance which can enrich 20th

century Orthodoxy in the West and the East, teaching it how

thanks to the freedom of the Spirit it is possible to find even

in extreme circumstances new and life-giving ways to live and

share the living and multi-layered treasure of Christian

tradition.

In the conclusion to the book we return to the question of the

shape of the historical narrative of Orthodox theology in the

West in the 20th century. We argue that it contains a mixture

of the different strands which were considered in the preceding

chapters. Recognising the impossibility of including all voices

and of giving a complete picture, we look here at the

paradoxical co-existence of a wonderful widely open theology

alongside exclusivism emerging from prior ethnic, political or

theological choices. We will look for answers concerning where

the individual forms of exclusivism come from, and whether it

is possible to come to terms with and heal them. Returning to

the details which the chapters on the life and work of

missionaries, emigrés and martyrs captured allows us to focus 28 Rather than official ecumenism, which in Russia was known to infiltratedby the KGB, Men was interested in initiatives such as Taizé or L’Archecommunities, and he supported new forms of trans-confessional mission andwas a founder member of the renewed Russian Bible Society.

again on the idea of unity in plurality. We show how the

concrete forms of life with which these people struggled can

contribute to the contemporary search for the authentic face of

Orthodoxy in the West, and how it can enrich post-modern

Christianity.

The book is part of the grant project “The Symbolic Mediation

of Wholeness in Western Orthodoxy” (GAČR P401/11/1688) and we

wish to express our thanks for support received to the Czech

Grant Agency, as well as the Protestant Theology Faculty of

Charles University, where the project is being carried out.

Thanks are also due to the International Baptist Theological

Seminary in Prague where several of our team also teach, both

for practical help and for ongoing interest in the results of

our work. We also thank the libraries of both institutions

along with Slavonic Library for being able to make use of their

resources and help.

An indispensable role in the writing of this book was played by

research visits to the Institut St. Serge in Paris, to

theological schools and the academy in Thessaloniki, Athens and

Volos, to the Theology Faculties in Sofia and Velko Turnovo and

to St Vladimir’s Seminary in New York. The book would not have

been possible without the openness and readiness of the

leadership of these institutions and consultations with

specialists in the field and work in their libraries. On

occasions reference will be found in the footnotes to our

records of conversations, the content of which we have thought

relevant. We do not use for these direct speech, since these

are not authorised tape-recordings, but rather our notes, for

which our conversation partners bear no responsibility.

Special thanks are due to the deans of St Serge and St

Vladimir’s, Fr. Nicolas Černokrak and Fr. John Behr, who have

supported us in our project from the beginning. Among others it

is necessary to mention from Paris Fr. John Breck, Joost van

Rossum, Fr. Nicolas Lossky, Fr. Nicolas Ozolin and

Archimandrite Grigorios Papathomas, to whom we are grateful for

the valuable introduction to the situation of Orthodoxy in

France. We would also like to record our thanks to the Dean of

the School in Thessaloniki, Michael Tritou and to the heads of

the two sections of the School, Dimitros Kaimakis and Christou

Oikonomou for the welcome in their faculties. Thanks are also

due to Kyriakoule Papademetriou, Evangelii Amoiridou,

Aikaterini Tsalampouni, Eleni Oikonomou, Dimitriu Moschos, Fr.

Basil Thermos, Stavros Yangazolou, Nikos Asproulis, Konstantin

Agoras, Denie Athanasopoulou-Kyprou, Fr. Antoniu Pinakoulas,

Sortis Goumelas and particularly Eleni Kassalouri, Pantelis

Kalaitzidis and Athanasios Papathanasiou for introducing us to

the situation of Greek Orthodoxy and sharing their work with

us.

For help with understanding the situation in Bulgaria we are

grateful to the Deans of the Faculties, Alexandr Omachevsky and

Dimitri Popmarinov Kirov, and to the teachers in these

faculties, Daljan Nikolchev, Konstantin Nushev, Bojidar

Antonov, Svetoslav Rybolov, Ljubomir Tenekedzhiev, Marijan

Stojadin, Stefka Kanchev, Fr. Dobromir Dimitrovov, as well as

to Nevena Dimitrova, Kalin and Slava Janakiev and by no means

least to Tanya Petrova, Atanas Atanasov and other colleagues.

A fundamental contribution to our work was a stay in St

Vladimir’s Seminary. Here we are grateful for consultations

which we could hold with Fr. John Behr, Peter Bouteneff, Paul

Meyendorff, Richard Schneider, John Barnet, David Wagschal, Fr.

Chad Hatfield, Abbot Gerasim Eliel, and from Fordham University

Aristoteles Papanikolaou a Matthew Baker.

Alongside Orthodox institutions and theologians we would like

also to thank for their support and help colleagues from the

Ecumenical Institute in Leuven, especially Peter DeMey, Jesuits

from Campion Hall in Oxford, the library of Heythrop College in

London and the community of Sisters of St Joseph in Plzen who

have supported our project in various ways.

It is also necessary to thank others who have contributed to

bringing the book to a close. These include Miroslav Zvelebil,

who translated the third chapter from English and Kateřina

Krnáčová, who translated part of the fifth chapter, Kateřina

Kyslíková, who helped us with transliteration and Blanka

Košáková, who did the language corrections. Finally we thank

the publishers CDK, and especially Jiří Hanuš, for their

ongoing support.

This book comes out of the desire to understand the historical,

cultural and social contexts in which Orthodox theology in the

20th century has brought a movement of renewal to the West. The

infelicity of some of the expressions will certainly betray the

fact that it was not written by Orthodox writers. It is a view

from without, albeit an engaged one. We ourselves understand

the work as an expression of gratitude for everything which we

have been able to take from Orthodox theologians of the 20th

century and their contemporary friends, for their viewpoints

and positions, which have enabled us to deepen and broaden our

Christian life, even if lived in a different Church setting.