Sergei Bulgakov: Eastern Orthodoxy
engaging the modern world1
Myroslaw Tataryn
Summary: This paper argues that the Russian Orthodox theologian, Sergei Bulgakov (1871-1944), offers a unique engagement with the modern world and thus challenges a reified view of traditional Christian doctrine. Bulgakov’s approach demonstrates that the doctrine of the Incarnation (as any doctrinal formulation) must be recognized as an attempt at understanding an ultimate truth (Divine Sophia) within a limiting context (earthly Sophia). Thus, although admitting the centrality of the Chalcedonian formula, theology must offer an interpretation and translation of its insights into the questions and dilemmas of the contemporary world. This open-ended approach is then applied both to Incarnational and ecumenical theology.
Résumé : Cette étude présente la pensée du théologien Russe Orthodoxe, Sergei
Bulgakov (1871-1944), qui, sur la base de son implication avec le monde
moderne, lance un défi aux perspectives statiques des doctrines
Christologiques. Bulgakov démontre que la doctrine de l’Incarnation (comme
toutes les formules doctrinales) doit être reconnue comme une approche pour
comprendre la vérité ultime (la Sophia Divine) dans un contexte limité (Sophia
d’ici bas). Même en admettant la centralité de la formule de Chalcédoine, la
théologie doit offrir une interprétation et une traduction de ses intuitions
dans les questions et les dilemmes du monde contemporain. Cette approche
ouverte est alors appliquée à la théologie de l’Incarnation et à théologie
oecuménique.
The Soviet revolution of 1917- 21 was an
epochal event producing tremendous political, social and cultural change. Among
its many results, one which is not as widely recognized is the destruction of
the renaissance of Russian religious thought and the dispersal of its
participants into
The impressive work of Catherine Evtuhov, in her analysis of Sergei Bulgakov’s pre-Revolutionary period, The Cross and the Sickle, demonstrates that among this group of émigré intellectuals Bulgakov is a leader both because of his creative intellect and because his work exists within the spectrum of Orthodox thought and the Western European intellectual tradition. Evtuhov asserts that Bulgakov’s pre-revolutionary work marks a clear move towards modernity in Russian thought. However, although she admits in her study that she does not address Bulgakov’s theological period, she notes that this phase in his development awaits close scrutiny. Rowan Williams, in his preface to his anthology of Bulgakov’s work, also recognizes the need for “further and better research and of inspiring explorations of his [Bulgakov’s] ideas” (1999: vii). Williams accurately assesses the current state of affairs in Bulgakov studies: “the inaccessibility of so much of his work and the unfamiliarity of his idiom meant that he was increasingly relegated to slightly puzzled footnotes; and the climate of Russian Orthodox theology in the next generation was not sympathetic to his more speculative vein” (1999: vii).
Elsewhere I have commented on the virtual
shunning in later émigré, especially English language works, of Bulgakov’s
thought (2000: 96, n.8). In addition, Paul Valliere has suggested that Bulgakov’s
theological method and that of Georges Florovsky, whose approach came to
dominate North American Orthodox reflection, are significantly different.
Unlike Florovsky, and the proponents of the Neopatristic synthesis, Bulgakov
and other members of the “Russian-school” were committed to “substantive
revision of the theological tradition” (Valliere 2001: 230). This revision was
rooted in the search for an accommodation between Orthodoxy and the modern
world, addressing such questions as tradition and freedom, science, religious
pluralism and how to understand dogmatic formulations in the modern intellecttual
context (Valliere 2001: 229). Bulgakov’s work, however, is now being reconsidered
and revalued. Some, such as Boris Jakim, are even willing to offer that he was “the
twentieth century’s most profound Orthodox systematic theologian” (Bulgakov
2002: ix).
Sophianic approach does not signal an
intellectual pride on Bulgakov’s part or an assertion of a new Gnosticism.
Rather, it is a response to the limits of historic dogmatic formulations.
Specifically, it is a conscious, limited “offer” made to his contemporaries to
overcome the problems inherent in bringing
the Chalcedonian formula forward into a
totally new and different historical context. Bulgakov’s Sophiology admits more
about the limits of human knowing and theological discourse than some are
willing to affirm. Bulgakov is not simply a product of an Orthodox cleric’s
family. His life journey reflects a constant questioning, rejection, and
embrace of God, faith, and Orthodoxy. There is no denying that for a
significant part of Bulgakov’s life God was dead. This, however, did not
preclude him from speaking about his faith during this period. In his
autobiography he describes himself as standing between two worlds throughout
his life (1946: 32). When he once more embraces Orthodoxy, he does not simply
return to the faith of his youth; he now has a new God. However, this new God
is jeopardized by a new, radically unexpected development: the rise of the
Soviet state and militant atheism. Bulgakov’s God, who re-unites him to the
Russian Orthodox Church, jarringly repudiates the integrity of that Church by
allowing the rise of Communism and the compromises of
ecclesiastical authority with the new state. Bulgakov, now in exile, must
reconstitute his God, reconstitute his understanding of Church, and finally,
reconstitute his definition of faithfulness to Orthodox tradition. After 1917,
Bulgakov experiences fundamental, irrevocable loss. Exile places him in no
place, in a time between times. In the midst of being the Dean of L’Institut S.
Serge in
What then does it mean to assert, as
Does Bulgakov develop his profoundly
complex Sophiological system in response to a perceived, or perhaps intuited,
inadequacy in the Chalcedonian formula? In other words, if the fifth-century
Orthodox dogma fully constituted the Christian understanding of the
divine-human and divine-created nature relationships, why develop this
elaborate Sophiology? Is it feasible to see in Bulgakov’s work an implicit
recognition of the limits of a historical dogma? Bulgakov affirms
the final exact formulation.
all of them, regardless of their fate in the Church, created one common action: they formed the theological epoch and thus influenced to some degree, one another so that one cannot understand theological teaching, nor conciliar formulations without recognizing their unity and mutual connection. (1933: 7)
The boundaries are there, but creativity,
interpretation and insight are produced when the boundaries are transgressed.
Thus no single ecumenical council claimed an exhaustive character to its formulations, rather they left room for further dogmatic investigations both in new councils as well as in wider dogmatic reflections. Nowhere is there an affirmation of a principle of dogmatic completeness. (Bulgakov 1936: 13)
This affirmation presents Bulgakov with a pressing task. In his 1937 work, Wisdom of God, he states:
Our modern age stands in need of a new apprehension of the dogmatic formulae preserved by the Church in its living tradition. Moreover, it cannot be overemphasized that there is no single dogmatic problem that does not at present need such reinterpretation. (1937: 35)
Bulgakov’s turn to Sophiology then, is not
an attempt at a “new Chalcedonian formula” nor is it an attempt at defining a
new overarching dogma. Rather, it is a response to the challenge of a new age,
a new time, a new human condition. What then are the problems of Orthodox
theology as perceived by Bulgakov? In terms of Christology and
This insight also presents the antinomy of
simultaneously hidden and revealed: “this presence [of Christ in the world] is
hidden; it is a mystery of God, inaccessible to human beings, although it is
already revealed and being revealed to them” (Bulgakov 1997: 52). This
antinomic character of Christ in the world is not exclusive to the Eucharistic
understanding; it is also part of the Ascension story and other events
(Bulgakov 1936: 19). A contemporary re-configuring of Christian dogma must
incorporate this antinomy. Thus Bulgakov turns to Sophiology: a tool for
redefining classic Christology with a clear cosmic focus.
Valliere speaks to the connection between Sophiology and the divine humanity:
Sophiology is a reflection on the humanity of God as intimated in the cosmicizing, transformative works of human culture. The discipline starts from the concrete data of human creativity, for “human creativity—in science, economy, culture, art—is sophianic. (1991: 182)
Sophiology allows Bulgakov to turn his attention to understanding and explaining the Chalcedonian insight in a much wider and broader context than had been done earlier. Bulgakov holds that his Sophiology is “steeped in the pathos of the Chalcedonian dogma” (1936: 12). Yet it breaks the constraints of a mechanistic adoption of the dogma which characterized, for him, traditional Orthodox appropriation of the dogma. But the product of this approach is not a new definitive formula. Bulgakov is conscious of the very limited nature of his project. In Wisdom of God, he asserts that although sophiology “is at the present time responsible for a sort of ideological ferment even in our Orthodox milieu” the formulations are limited; they stand “on the threshold of dogmatic considerations” (1937: 28). Nor does Sophiolog claim a primacy within Orthodox thought: “It is characteristic of only one trend of thought within Christianity; it is by no means dominant in the Orthodox Church.…It is untrue to affirm that the development of the doctrine of the Wisdom of God leads to the denial or undermining of any part of Christian dogma” (1937: 29). Further in the same work he argues that there are many forms of Sophiology and that there is even a need to distinguish two different Sophia: in God and in the creature; the Divine Sophia is and is not the creaturely Sophia (1937: 114 -115). Clearly Sophiology’s purpose is to raise new questions, attempt new approaches, test new answers. It is not a final system, but rather as Valliere affirms:
Sophiology works on dogma in all sorts of wonderful ways—galvanizing, crystallizing, illuminating, extending, elaborating; but it does not discard dogmas or invent new ones. It catalyzes new relationships within dogma and between dogma and culture. Its job is to guide theologians on the terrain, mostly uncharted, where dogma meets experience, Church meets world, Christianity meets culture, Orthodoxy meets modernity. (1991: 190)
Sophiology is the tool by which Christian
theology remains completely open to human, historical and thus, ever changing
experience, which is consistent with the integral bond between humanity and
divinity expressed in
The character of Bulgakov’s Sophiology, in its indeterminacy, lack of completeness and elusiveness, constantly challenges to re-appraisal and reconfiguration. It does not present absolutist answers, but rather reaffirms the validity of Christian Orthodoxy in a dialogue with the contemporary world. Sophiology affirms the limitedness of human formulations. Even dogmatic statements, although pointing to the truth, are in and of themselves incomplete. There is always more; there is always Other which calls the hidden into revealedness. The Divine Sophia comes into the light as creaturely Sophia, but is always more than we can know. Sophiology strives within Orthodox tradition not simply to articulate this insight, but to root it methodologically. In defending himself against the condemnation of the Karlovtsi Synod,6
Bulgakov defends his Orthodoxy, even though
his Sophiology is full of apparent contradictions (1936: 2). At the outset of
his Zapiski [Notes] he makes much of the fact that his
first theological foray into Sophiology
(Svet nevecherni [Unfading Light]) was published prior to
his ordination by Patriarch
Tikhon in 1917. At that time, Bulgakov was
not judged by Russian Orthodoxy’s highest ecclesiastical authority as a
heretic. However, in the post-revolutionary period, he is declared a heretic by
the Moscow Synod (1935) and the Karlovtsi Synod (1927). This can occur,
according to Bulgakov, because the two synodical authorities only perceive
Orthodox teaching in terms of two possibilities: Orthodox or heretical. He
asserts that his condemnation reflects the fate of the thought of Gregory
Palamas (1296-1359) at its inception (1936: 10). Orthodox teaching, however,
must recognize its limits and that neither the Fathers nor the Councils are an
unassailable authority (1936: 22). In defending Sophiology Bulgakov
de-legitimizes the “established” authorities, recognizes the inadequacy of any
formulations (which he admits are often contradictory or antinomical), and
posits an openness, or better, an invitation to keep trying. Bulgakov goes so
far as to assert that the Church is not symmetrical with a denomination. He
unequivocally declares “there are Christians in all Christianity” (1946: 46). In
1933 Bulgakov elaborates an undeniably progressive manifesto for the fledgling
ecumenical movement. Again, he rejects simple dichotomies: “The harsh,
unbending, unrelenting institutionalism of the one saving Church conflicts here
with a service in the Spirit....There exists between the Church and the
Churches not only a relationship of mutual expulsion but also one of
concordance” (1976: 101). Without denying the profound differences among
Christians, Bulgakov asserts a “new inspiration” by the Holy Spirit which
transcends the “confessional differences” (1976: 102). Thus he speaks not
longingly of a unity to be achieved, but of a unity “which actually exists even
now in the Christian world” (1976: 102). Without “distorting” differences, Bulgakov
affirms a common Christianity in many areas of prayer/worship, scripture, the
spiritual life, and the sacraments. “Thus there exists even now a certain
spiritual unity within the Christian world, although this is not expressed in
any formulae. But we should add to this mystical, adogmatic unity of the
Christian world the reality of its dogmatic oneness” (1976: 107). Foreshadowing
a post-Vatican II approach to ecumenical relations, Bulgakov states: “all
Christians must realize not only their division but also their agreement”
(1976: 108). Finally, he prophetically appeals for sacramental fellowship among
Orthodox, Anglicans, non-Chalcedonian Christians, Roman Catholics, “as well as
the Episcopal Church in Protestantism” (1976: 112). Aware that historically
sacramental unity only followed dogmatic agreement, Bulgakov asserts that these
Churches, having preserved the priesthood, “are powerless to destroy the
efficacy of the sacraments”
(1976: 112). Thus he allows that unity at the Altar may in fact be a valuable precursor to dogmatic harmony.
The priesthood of the East and the West must realize itself as one priesthood, celebrating the one Eucharist, and, if the minds of the priests could become aflame with this idea, all barriers would fall. For in response to this, dogmatic unity will be achieved, or rather a mutual understanding of one another in our distinctive features. (1976: 113)
Once more Bulgakov’s thought challenges
strong and steadfast categories of separation and challenges his contemporaries
to think beyond the box. Unfortunately, as in the area of Sophiology
specifically, here too, after generating acute debate and even recrimination
Bulgakov’s views were to be rejected (Blane 1993: 65). Bulgakov’s opponents
were unprepared for the subversion of the foundational premises by which they
defined their Orthodoxy. For Bulgakov, mechanistic repetition of historical
declarations was inadequate; totalizing doctrines were vacuous; Christian
theology was constantly in process of formulation and re-formulation. His
opponents saw Christianity, and particularly Orthodoxy as clearly defined. Even
the most progressive among his opponents, Georges Florovsky for example, was
among those who saw “the business of theology…as the recovery of patristic
sources and the articulation of the meaning of those sources in a modern idiom”
(Valliere 2001: 231). The Synodical decrees condemned Bulgakov for heresy; his
method was a fundamental challenge to their definition of
Orthodoxy. Although Florovsky labelled Bulgakov’s thought as dangerous, his
approach was and is as dangerous, as scandalous, as open to an unknown future
as is the Gospel. Bulgakov’s project, and that of his collaborators was “to
develop a theology of engagement with and involvement in the secular world, to
offer a sympathetic theological interpretation of secular experience, and
thereby to introduce into Orthodox theology a more positive and affirmative
relationship between church and world than can be found in the traditional
fathers of the Church” (Valliere 2001: 232). Historical circumstances
transpired against Bulgakov. His voice was silenced by the events of World War
II and the transfer of the theological center of Russian Orthodoxy from
Notes
1 An earlier version of this paper was
presented at the annual meetings of the American
2 For the application of the term “Silver
Age” to more than just literature see the argument
presented by Catherine Evtuhov (1997: 2, n.
1).
3 Valuable recent work on thinkers in this
period are Aidan Nichols, Theology
in the Russian
Diaspora: Church, fathers, Eucharist in
Nikolai Afanasev (1893-1966) (1989); Paul Valliere,
Modern Russian Theology: Bukharev,
Solovier, Bulgakov, Orthodox Theology in a New Key (2000);
and my Augustine and Russian Orthodoxy: Russian Orthodox Theologians
and Augustine of
Hippo a Twentieth-Century Dialogue (2000).
4 Even in the two years since the original
paper was read at the
new contributions have been made to the
English language corpus: Sergius Bulgakov, The
Bride of the Lamb, translated by Boris Jakim (2002); Sergei
Bulgakov, Philosophy of
Economy:
The World As Household, edited and translated by Catherine Evtuhov
(2000); and Rowan
Williams, ed. Sergii Bulgakov: Towards a Russian
Political Theology (1999).
5 This term of course has been used by many
thinkers and has most recently found a resurgence
in popularity. Bulgakov used the notion of
Sophia in his economic theory to denote
an overarching principle and
all-encompassing concept. It is further developed in his
theological period into his Sophiology.
6 A monarchist, conservative grouping of
Russian Orthodox outside of the
established in 1921, and headed by
Metropolitan Antonii Khrapovitsky.
References
Blane, Andrew, ed.
1993 Georges Florovsky: Russian Intellectual and Orthodox Churchman. Crestwood,
NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Bulgakov, Sergius
1933 Agnets Bozhii [Lamb of God].
1936 Dokladnaia Zapiska mitropolitu Evlogiiu prof. prot. Sergiia
Bulgakova.
YMCA Press.
Tataryn / Sergei Bulgakov: Eastern
Orthodoxy 321
1937 The Wisdom of God: A Brief Summary of Sophiology.
1946 Avtobiograficheskiia Zamitki [Autobiographical Notes]
1976 [1933] “By Jacob’s well.” In James
Pain and Nicolas Zernov (eds.), Sergius
Bulgakov: A Bulgakov Anthology, 100-113.
1997 [1937] “The holy grail.” In Boris
Jakim (trans. and ed.), Holy
Grail and the
Eucharist, 23-61. NY:
2002 The Bride of the Lamb. Translated by and with an Introduction by Boris
Jakim.
Tataryn, Myroslaw
2000 Augustine and Russian Orthodoxy: Russian Orthodox Theologians
and Augustine
of Hippo, a Twentieth Century Dialogue.
Valliere, Paul
1991 “Sophiology as the dialogue of
Orthodoxy with modern civilization,” In
Kornblatt and Gustafson (eds.), Russian Religious Thought, 176-92.
WI:
2000 Modern Russian Theology: Bukharev, Solovier, Bulgakov, Orthodox
Theology in a
New Key.
2001 “Russian religious thought and the
future of Orthodox theology.”
St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 45 (2001): 227-41.
Williams, Rowan, ed.
1999 Sergii Bulgakov: Towards a Russian Political Theology.