Why does everyone hate Schmemman?

[Elisha]

Yeah, I know, I used just a tad of hyperbole, but I made you look.

So what's the rip on Schmemman?  People either seem to love his writings or practically write him off as a heretic.  He doesn't really seem like an Ecumenist to me.  I'm currently reading a book called Eastern Orthodox Theology, edited by Clendinin (who I think is non-Orthodox), but all of the articles are by Orthodox writers.  There are two by Schmemman on Evangelism/Dialogue with non-Orthodox and they don't seem to be comprimising of the Faith at all - he points out the failings pointlessness of the WCC stuff!  I really don't get it.

I just checked out Great Lent from our lending library and am looking forward to reading it once I'm done with EO Theology.

[Nacho]

He's one of the best modern day Orthodox writers in my opinion. I don't know how anyone can read his books and come away not liking him. His insights are so deep and compelling, but I'm sure there are those that will find some kind of fault with his writings and accuse him of something he isn't. 

[Fr. David]

Yeah, I know, I used just a tad of hyperbole, but I made you look.

Heh.

So what's the rip on Schmemman? People either seem to love his writings or practically write him off as a heretic. He doesn't really seem like an Ecumenist to me. I'm currently reading a book called Eastern Orthodox Theology, edited by Clendinin (who I think is non-Orthodox), but all of the articles are by Orthodox writers. There are two by Schmemman on Evangelism/Dialogue with non-Orthodox and they don't seem to be comprimising of the Faith at all - he points out the failings pointlessness of the WCC stuff! I really don't get it.

Yeah, he seems to have had a grasp of who the Church was; I think he just thought the Church could still hold to this without calling the heterodox completely graceless. And I think there's support for that, since the traditions of (for example) reception of heterodox have been just that: traditionS. It seems to reflect the two different outlooks that have existed side-by-side in the Church for two thousand years: one that says that a baptism is correct, just incomplete, and the other that says that it's completely invalid and graceless, so it can be done away with.

I think another area he's looked down upon for is his view of liturgical theology: he didn't recommend changing anything (quite the contrary; liturgically, as I understand from my priest, he was a real stickler when it came to rubrics), but he rather wanted folks to see the rubrics, the flow of the service, the very heart of the service in a different way. I think this upset many, who didn't approve of his views, calling them "protestantizations" and worse.

I just checked out Great Lent from our lending library and am looking forward to reading it once I'm done with EO Theology.

Hey, cool...I'm re-reading that this Lent myself, starting w/the Pre-Lenten Sunday stuff each Sunday.

[aurelia]

Well, I for one am having a heck of a time finding it, i'm going to have to order it if i want to read it, even the library can't get it! And I would like to!

[Elisha]

Yeah, he seems to have had a grasp of who the Church was; I think he just thought the Church could still hold to this without calling the heterodox completely graceless.  And I think there's support for that, since the traditions of (for example) reception of heterodox have been just that: traditionS.  It seems to reflect the two different outlooks that have existed side-by-side in the Church for two thousand years: one that says that a baptism is correct, just incomplete, and the other that says that it's completely invalid and graceless, so it can be done away with.

I think another area he's looked down upon for is his view of liturgical theology: he didn't recommend changing anything (quite the contrary; liturgically, as I understand from my priest, he was a real stickler when it came to rubrics), but he rather wanted folks to see the rubrics, the flow of the service, the very heart of the service in a different way.  I think this upset many, who didn't approve of his views, calling them "protestantizations" and worse.

The vibe I seem to get is that he's a filthy Ecumenist.  I really haven't read that much yet, but I don't get that "compromising" the Faith feeling that I think some feel.  I would think that the same people who dis Fr. Alex S would dis Bishop K as well and I don't get that vibe (as much)....as if Fr. Alex S is a much bigger traitor or something.

[Pravoslavbob]

I think it's strange that so many traditionalist and traditionalist-leaning Orthodox dislike Schmemann so much.   I can't say that I really understand it.  I am trying to understand their point of view.  Perhaps some of it has to do with things he said about liturgy that do not appear to condone a more traditionalist view of how liturgy develops.  I don't think that he was a friend of the old calendar.  This might also have something to do with it.  I posted about this a couple of months back.  I'm not sure if I agree with everything I posted anymore, but you could take a look at it.  There was a bit of a discussion around this issue.


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php/topic,4412.msg60240.html#msg60240

Bob

[Anastasios]

I don't object to him as an Ecumenist, as he was not an Ecumenist. He had Modernist tendencies, though, in my opinion.

To understand Schmemann it is necessary to understand his context. He was reacting against people who rigidly reduced Orthodoxy to rules and regulations and stiffled the spirit out of Orthodoxy. People who went to confession because it made them "worthy" to commune and made them worthy to be parish members. People who believed that baptism was best done in the living room of a house on Saturday afternoon. People who didn't go to Church on Holy Saturday for the Vesperal Liturgy and expected the priest to not even serve it so that he would have time to bless their Easter baskets.

In that context then, is it any wonder that he was against formalism? He wanted to reinvigorate the spiritual life of immigrants who were in a new context and for whom spiritual life, formerly tied to village life, was being snuffed out in a new environment. He did many good things for the Church, the best of which was restoration of frequent communion.

Schmemann's books are often very good, and reflect a love of Christ. But the modernist tendancies are there, in that straw-men villains are created and knocked down as contributing to the above problems. To see this played out explicitly, one should read his Journals, which I think should have never been published. In these Journals, one sees Schmemann's overly critical, haughty, vicious criticisms of others. You see him criticize an Orthodox priest for wearing his cassock to Education Day, with Schmemann attributing to him pride and a belief that "externals save." What utter judgmentalism! Orthodox of the past are routinely dismissed as ignorant. Others are wrong, but he is right, etc etc. This attitude is the true problem with Fr Schmemann, not "ecumenism" as he was not one.

Anastasios

[Pravoslavbob]

Interesting points, Anastasios. I have only read bits and pieces of the journals. I shall have to look at them more. This could explain a lot.

I don't think that modernism really exists in Orthodoxy as a category the way it does in the West. I guess you could always try to convince me otherwise at some point, if you felt so inclined. 

Bob

[Anastasios]

Certainly, Bob, compared to Protestantism or Catholicism, modernism is not a category in Orthodoxy. I think of it more as a general tendency that affects all of us to some extent, but which becomes pernicious when used as a way to ridicule our opponents or propogate our opinions as doctrines. I don't know many Orthodox modernists and hesitate to lable people, but I have met a few (as in 3 or 4) in influential positions in the Church that gave me pause to think.  I don't think ideas are problematic, I think attitudes are, which is what distrubed me about these particular 3 or 4 people.  Still, I accept your point that it is not widespread.

Anastasios

[Pravoslavbob]

That's interesting, Anastasios.  I've never seen it explained this way before.

Bob

[choirfiend]

Someone once expressed to me that his journals were published explicitly because his family wanted to break down some of the reverence and awe that the people were holding him in-- St. Schememann for working so hard to restore frequent communion and the use of the people's language in the Liturgy--he didn't want that recognition and neither did his family, so his personal journals were published so that others could see he wasn't completely saintly. He was a regular man who worked like mad to the betterment of the Church- look how much as improved over the last 50 years! We owe much of it to him. 

I love his writings and the writings of his son-in-law. For those who knew him, he was one of the most important Orthodox thinkers in the last several centuries. Anyone who was at seminary during his years there as dean have a very different appreciation of him than those who do not know him and just base soem judgement of him by his books. His last sermon in the last liturgy he served is displayed in calligraphy prominantly in many priests' offices.  He was a great man, and I am with you when you are shocked by those who seem to disdain him. Whatever his conflicted private thoughts might have been, his love and efforts for the Church and what he accomplished should be the standard by which people know him.

[Elisha]

Interesting.  Thanks guys.

[Marjorie]

I love Fr. Schmemann to death. I think he is perhaps the greatest modern American Orthodox writer. I am absolutely devoted to his books.

However, I agree with Anastasios on his journals-- while there is a LOT of good in them, there's also a lot that comes off as very... eh... judgmental. But I think that is because he wrote down whatever he thought in the journals, and, like all of us, he was not perfect.

Marjorie

[BrotherAidan]

Isn't that the point of journals?
To be honest, even confessional?
So that you can read over it tomorrow or next week and pray or repent, give thanks or ask for help?

Or look back a year or two and ask - have I grown any since I recorded this entry?

I think punblished journals are not meant to be biographical regarding the writer of them - they are meant to be autobiographical - FOR US reading them. How am I like him in this judgment or that critique? Or, do I have the courage to look at myself this transparently. ANOTHER'S journal can be a mirror into MY SOUL.

[Anastasios]

Isn't that the point of journals?
To be honest, even confessional?
So that you can read over it tomorrow or next week and pray or repent, give thanks or ask for help?

Or look back a year or two and ask - have I grown any since I recorded this entry?

I think punblished journals are not meant to be biographical regarding the writer of them - they are meant to be autobiographical - FOR US reading them. How am I like him in this judgment or that critique? Or, do I have the courage to look at myself this transparently. ANOTHER'S journal can be a mirror into MY SOUL.

I don't know if I think that writing journals is a spiritually profitable thing. Why would you want to keep a record of your sin? You should be brutally honest in confession, but keeping a record of the sin might be a temptation down the line.

Anastasios

[BrotherAidan]

Good point!
I don't keep a journal myself. but for those who do....

I think it depends on one's personality

But in reference to Fr. Schemmenn, it does seem he was being pretty transparent in his journal

[Νεκτάριος]

I guess it depends.  Fr. Seraphim Rose promoted journal writtingand especially the taking of notes when reading patristic works.

[Asteriktos]

Speaking of Fr. Seraphim, the criticisms of Fr. Alexander in Fr. Seraphim's Biography (in the chapter on "Renovationism," among others) pretty well sum up my own thoughts on the matter.

[penelope]

I don't know if I think that writing journals is a spiritually profitable thing. Why would you want to keep a record of your sin? You should be brutally honest in confession, but keeping a record of the sin might be a temptation down the line.

Anastasios

I guess that could be true, but on the other hand it makes it harder to lie to yourself.  I've personally been in a few situations where I've managed to convince myself that, if nothing else, my motives were right, but looking at my journals, I've been reminded that my memory was more than a little selective.  I've also traded journals with my fiance, which was an illuminating experience to say the least

[Deacon Lance]

"In these Journals, one sees Schmemann's overly critical, haughty, vicious criticisms of others.  You see him criticize an Orthodox priest for wearing his cassock to Education Day, with Schmemann attributing to him pride and a belief that "externals save."  What utter judgmentalism!"

Actually the journal reads:
"Another temptation of religion-which was made clear to me in conversation about some priest-is piety.  Looking at some of our priest, walking around the semianry on Education Day, one can physically feel theirworship of cassocks, clerical hats, all that constitutes this visible piety.  And then one hears that almost all of them are condemning all others for lack of spirituality, lack of piety."

What utter insight!

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Anastasios]

"In these Journals, one sees Schmemann's overly critical, haughty, vicious criticisms of others. You see him criticize an Orthodox priest for wearing his cassock to Education Day, with Schmemann attributing to him pride and a belief that "externals save." What utter judgmentalism!"

Actually the journal reads:
"Another temptation of religion-which was made clear to me in conversation about some priest-is piety. Looking at some of our priest, walking around the semianry on Education Day, one can physically feel theirworship of cassocks, clerical hats, all that constitutes this visible piety. And then one hears that almost all of them are condemning all others for lack of spirituality, lack of piety."

What utter insight!

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr Deacon Lance,

Your posting of the quote just reaffirms what I wrote earlier. He is being extremely judgmental and presumptuous here.

Anastasios

[Deacon Lance]

Anastasios,

Just the opposite.  He is talking about those whose piety is focused on externals.  They wear their cassocks, riassas, and klobuks and exalt themselves for it and then turn around and belittle others for their lack of piety based on their externals.  Many of the Fathers had the same things to say about their contemporaries. 

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Nacho]

Just the opposite.  He is talking about those whose piety is focused on externals.  They wear their cassocks, riassas, and klobuks and exalt themselves for it and then turn around and belittle others for their lack of piety based on their externals.  Many of the Fathers had the same things to say about their contemporaries.

He is right. It's the same legalistic mentaliity that overly focuses too much on outwardly things while they forget about the more important aspects of being a good christian. For instance, I have heard some criticism of priest that wear western garb and I think that starts to fall into the lines of legalism. I beleive externals are important, but why dwell on the minutia of the smallest details of someones garb when the apostles never lectured anyone on such matters once and nothing was formulized for hundreds of years.

[Anastasios]

Anastasios,

Just the opposite. He is talking about those whose piety is focused on externals. They wear their cassocks, riassas, and klobuks and exalt themselves for it and then turn around and belittle others for their lack of piety based on their externals. Many of the Fathers had the same things to say about their contemporaries.

Fr. Deacon Lance

And how would he know which of those priests are such without judging them?  He can't. He is assuming that they are focused on externals, but how does HE know they are? He doesn't; just assumes that because they don't fit his idea of piety, and because they are wearing clerical garb, that they must be too focused on the clerical garb.

Anastasios

[Anastasios]

He is right. It's the same legalistic mentaliity that overly focuses too much on outwardly things while they forget about the more important aspects of being a good christian. For instance, I have heard some criticism of priest that wear western garb and I think that starts to fall into the lines of legalism. I beleive externals are important, but why dwell on the minutia of the smallest details of someones garb when the apostles never lectured anyone on such matters once and nothing was formulized for hundreds of years.

He's dead wrong. Wearing the clerical garb and otherwise following the Traditions of the Church are ways to free the person from the legalism of the rationalizing power of the human mind, and free it for genuine spirituality.

Anastasios

[Νεκτάριος]

I must agree with our esteemed administrator here.  Following all the "external" rules of Orthodoxy is a sign of obedience that leads to an inner spiritual life.  Of course there people with long beards and cassocks that lack a Christian heart.  But I am worried about following the guidance of a priest that not only doesn't follow the rules of Orthodoxy but seems to hold them in contempt and mock those that do.  Actually it is ironic that very idea in question that Mr. Lance seems to be holding in such esteem in condemnation of the entire concept of the unia.  Can one hold the external rites and rituals of Orthodoxy but be under the papal herisarch?

[choirfiend]

And here we are, condemning Schmemman for his "weakness" in having negative opinions about the priests around him.  Of course, since we weren't there, and didn't observe the people he is talking about, and have NO IDEA of the situation that would spur Schmemman to write that, we have little business for judging him, don't we? He may very well have had negative opinions about some of his peers; some perhaps with reason, as he was rather radical for insisting on frequent communion and local languages and was not so popular. What he wrote down here, he may have confessed and been forgiven of it. So, why hold it against him now?

[Anastasios]

Of course, since we weren't there, and didn't observe the people he is talking about, and have NO IDEA of the situation that would spur Schmemman to write that, we have little business for judging him, don't we?

That's actually a tricky point because he didn't write for an audience, but that role was forced on him by those who chose to publish these reflections. As you will note above, I defended him for the most part in my initial post but only mentioned that some of his attitudes expressed are harmful, which is true of most people, and that if such is kept in mind his works are generally good; I don't believe he has been condemned in this thread.

If he had written that for an audience, however, I would have said it is right to criticize him and that that act of criticism would not be judgmentalism because it would be defending the people who are judged and responding to the actions--not intent--of the one doing the judging. But again, that is a moot point as I doubt Fr. Schmemann knew the journals would see the light of day.

You are right that he may have repented of what he wrote, which is why again I think that having journals that record one's sin might not be a good idea, because what is written might come back to haunt you. However, I am not saying this in a blanket way as some have pointed out that some spiritual fathers do assign journals.

Anastasios

[Nacho]

He's dead wrong. Wearing the clerical garb and otherwise following the Traditions of the Church are ways to free the person from the legalism of the rationalizing power of the human mind, and free it for genuine spirituality.

Anastasios

I totally agree with you that externals are important. I was just pointing out that it starts to get legalistic when one puts the outwardly apperance/style garb above a different one such as something that may appear more western and split hairs over it.

[choirfiend]

I agree with you, Anastasios. It was the original question "Why are there so many here that seem to hate Schmemman?" that I was really addressing. I have read a number of posts, mostly older, that were highly biased and negative toward Fr. Schmemman. I truly think that having "bad" inner thoughts does not and should not affect the viewing of that person's work in theology and praxis. It's so rare that you do see into another's mind in this way, and it's not supposed to happen in most cases. Which is why I find the printing of his journals so interesting. Just food for thought~

[Fr. David]

Wearing the clerical garb and otherwise following the Traditions of the Church are ways to free the person from the legalism of the rationalizing power of the human mind, and free it for genuine spirituality.

I must agree with our esteemed administrator here.  Following all the "external" rules of Orthodoxy is a sign of obedience that leads to an inner spiritual life.  Of course there people with long beards and cassocks that lack a Christian heart.

These things can free, and these things can bind.  The same can be said for wearing a prayer rope around the wrist instead of carrying it in one's pocket.  Or constantly adding to one's icon corner (or bookshelf) at home.  We've got plenty to work on w/out getting on Fr. Alexander...I can really see a tendency I have from reading that excerpt Dn. Lance posted....

  But I am worried about following the guidance of a priest that not only doesn't follow the rules of Orthodoxy but seems to hold them in contempt and mock those that do.

"Not follow the rules of Orthodoxy" how?

[Deacon Lance]

Anastasios,

You write: "And how would he know which of those priests are such without judging them?"

Did you read the entire quote?

"And then one hears that almost all of them are condemning all others for lack of spirituality, lack of piety."

That is why he accuses them of false piety, not because they are wearing cassocks.

You also state:"just assumes that because they don't fit his idea of piety, and because they are wearing clerical garb, that they must be too focused on the clerical garb."

Since Protopresbyter Schmemann wore the cassock I find that statement an overreach.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Νεκτάριος]

These things can free, and these things can bind. The same can be said for wearing a prayer rope around the wrist instead of carrying it in one's pocket. Or constantly adding to one's icon corner (or bookshelf) at home. We've got plenty to work on w/out getting on Fr. Alexander...I can really see a tendency I have from reading that excerpt Dn. Lance posted....

I actually agree with you for the most part, Pedro and with Fr. Alexander's realization that there was a problem.  What I disagree with is his approach and method to dealing with the situation.  The problem of legalism of doing everything correctly yet missing the entire spirit and ethos of Orthodoxy (it seems Russians flirt with this problem a lot throughout history) is nothing new.  This is precisely what Saint Paisius Velichkosky was up against during his lifetime.  But rather than approach the situation with minimalism, he fought it with maximalism.  The same is also true of Father Seraphim Rose.  He saw that there were many in the ROCOR (and the Greek groups they were in communion with at the time) with this tendancy, thus many of his later writtings cautioned of super-correctness.  I think their approach is much more balanced. 

"Not follow the rules of Orthodoxy" how?

cutting services A LOT, wearing western clerical gard or bussiness suits, having no beards, supporting evolution, pro - artificial birth control, support of bad types of ecumenism (opposed to genuinely exposing non - Orthodox to Orthodoxy), abolishing fasting etc.  (note that I have personally seen various priests of different jurisdictions do each of these) 

[Elisha]

Speaking of Fr. Seraphim, the criticisms of Fr. Alexander in Fr. Seraphim's Biography (in the chapter on "Renovationism," among others) pretty well sum up my own thoughts on the matter.

Could you be more specific on the name of the chapter (or edition of the book you saw it in)?  I tried looking this up in both Genesis, Creation and Early Man and Fr. S: His Life & Works and didn't see this chapter.

I talked with a priest at the Ortho bookstore and he brought up the point Fr. Schmemman said in Great Lent on Confession and Communion - that he trivialized Confession saying that it shouldn't be necessary or something.  I have the book, but haven't started it yet but will read that part soon.  I mentioned the idea that maybe Fr. S was well intentioned, but came across bad regarding the topic in that chapter.

[Νεκτάριος]

Regarding Fr. Alexander and confession and communion:

I have read the entire book Great Lent and found it to actually be quite disturbing because of the author's views on those topics. To me it seemed that Fr. Alexander saw that the early Christians had great piety and recieved communion frequently thus the lax Christians we are today could simply recieve communion more often and magically become pious. Basicly he has it backwards. Living a pious life of prayer and fasting will cause someone to recieve communion more often, which will in turn give them the grace to grow further.

Regarding Fr. Seraphim Rose:

Chapter 63 (pg 518) in "His Life & Works" is a good outline of his position on super correctness.

Later today I will post some intersting quotes I have from Fr. Seraphim about the issue in the Modern Church Fathers thread 

[Schultz]

Regarding Fr. Schmemman's journals, I am reminded of the journals of Bronislaw Malinowski, a famous anthropologist who did fieldwork for two years in the Trobriand Islands and who practically single-handedly developed the idea of "participant observation".  His published writing speak of the respect he had for the natives of the Trobriands, but his journals, which were never meant to be published, reveal the frustration he had with them which some people have interpreted as racism, a theory I cannot agree with based upon the writings of others who knew him well but can understand why it has come about.

I agree with Anastasios.  Why keep a record of such sin?  It invariably comes back to bite one in the proverbial rear end.

And for the record, I love reading the late Fr. Schmemman's works, but then again, I'm a heathen Catholic

[TonyS]

Actually it is ironic that very idea in question that Mr. Lance seems to be holding in such esteem in condemnation of the entire concept of the unia.

Nektarios,

Whatever you think of the Catholic Church "Mr. Lance" is a deacon of the Catholic Church and should be referred to as such.  It is very rude of you to call him "Mr. Lance." 

An another board the administrator admonishes people who do not use the titles of clerics proper to their churches, the same thing should be done here.  It is NOT AN ORTHODOX VIRTUE TO BE RUDE.

TonyS

[TonyS]

"Confession and Communion"  By Rev. A Schmemann
http://www.oca.org/pages/ocaadmin/documents/holysynod/confession.communion.html
 

I think all should read the above cited document.

[Anastasios]

Nektarios,

Whatever you think of the Catholic Church "Mr. Lance" is a deacon of the Catholic Church and should be referred to as such. It is very rude of you to call him "Mr. Lance."

An another board the administrator admonishes people who do not use the titles of clerics proper to their churches, the same thing should be done here. It is NOT AN ORTHODOX VIRTUE TO BE RUDE.

TonyS

Nektarios,

Although I don't think Tony's public chastisement of you is the best first step of redress (a private message might have been more appropriate), I agree with him that you should address Fr Lance as Fr Lance.

Anastasios

[Asteriktos]

Elisha,

I was thinking of Chapter 61 of the work Not of This World: The Life and Teachings of Fr. Seraphim Rose. In the copy I have (which is the original version and not the revised one), Chapter 61 is called "Renovationism" and focuses on what is perceived to be reforming tendencies "from the left". I have my own thoughts on Frs. Alexander Schmemann, John Meyendorff, et al. from reading their books, but I thought it better just to reference Fr. Seraphim's thoughts. Considering the way this thread has turned out, I wish I would have said nothing at all

[Νεκτάριος]

My apologies to Fr. Deacon Lance, it was a mistake done after a "fun" and late night at work without thinking.  As evidence that I meant no disrespect towards him nor his Church I offer that fact that I defended HH Pope John Paul II in another thread calling him "Pope." 

[Elisha]

Elisha,

I was thinking of Chapter 61 of the work Not of This World: The Life and Teachings of Fr. Seraphim Rose. In the copy I have (which is the original version and not the revised one), Chapter 61 is called "Renovationism" and focuses on what is perceived to be reforming tendencies "from the left". I have my own thoughts on Frs. Alexander Schmemann, John Meyendorff, et al. from reading their books, but I thought it better just to reference Fr. Seraphim's thoughts. Considering the way this thread has turned out, I wish I would have said nothing at all

That's OK.  I want to read the different viewpoints and am glad to hear some context around things as well.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > General Forums > Reviews > Topic: Why does everyone hate Schmemman?