Hopko and Schmemann?

[jckstraw72]

I'm not judging them based on emotion; I like them because I have read them, agree with them and have learnt from them.

And they are not infallible. We should point out where they fall short of Orthodoxy as delivered to us.

But, returning to the OP, I think calling Fathers Schmemann or Hopko a "heretic" is reckless and does a great disservice to their memory. I would condemn an Internet group that does that.

To be fair, you would first have to at least become aware of what their arguments are.

For instance, a well-known one is that Fr. Hopko says in the Winter Pascha that there is no such tradition of the Theotokos having a painless birth and her womb not being opened. But, this teaching is explicitly taught by a great many Fathers (this is what is meant when we say she was a virgin DURING birth), the hymns often speak of her womb not being opened, and it is Ecumenically taught by the Trullo Council.

So, while I too don't feel the need to go making FB posts about them being heretical, again, you can't really dismiss the people in this group until you become aware of and engage their arguments.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

To be fair, you would first have to at least become aware of what their arguments are.

For instance, a well-known one is that Fr. Hopko says in the Winter Pascha that there is no such tradition of the Theotokos having a painless birth and her womb not being opened. But, this teaching is explicitly taught by a great many Fathers (this is what is meant when we say she was a virgin DURING birth), the hymns often speak of her womb not being opened, and it is Ecumenically taught by the Trullo Council.

So, while I too don't feel the need to go making FB posts about them being heretical, again, you can't really dismiss the people in this group until you become aware of and engage their arguments.

Fair enough. And of course heresy should be condemned (see the Trojan Horse article). But I should think such teachings of Father Hopko, while arguably a minority view, do not elevate Father Hopko to the status of "heretic".

My own Metropolitan Alfeyev, whom I love, shows openness to the concept of universal salvation, even though apocatastasis is a condemned heresy (unlike the example you mention regarding Hopko's teaching about the Theotokos). David Bentley Hart argues openly for universal salvation/reconciliation. Are these Orthodox teachers "heretics"? Is that a fair rubric for Metr. Alfeyev (and if so why isn't he removed)? Or rather is this a case where we should cite a caveat for otherwise excellent Orthodox teachers?

What makes teaching about apocatastasis a pious belief or
theologoumenon whereas what Fathers Hopko and Schmemann taught heresy?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm not judging them based on emotion; I like them because I have read them, agree with them and have learnt from them.

And they are not infallible. We should point out where they fall short of Orthodoxy as delivered to us.

But, returning to the OP, I think calling Fathers Schmemann or Hopko a "heretic" is reckless and does a great disservice to their memory. I would condemn an Internet group that does that.

well, sorry then, it just sounded like you were when you say stuff like, "l like them so much." that is my bad for the misread.

and there are people in that group who defended Frs Hopko and Schmemann.

 

[All4Christ]

...

 

[All4Christ]

Fair enough. And of course heresy should be condemned (see the Trojan Horse article). But I should think such teachings of Father Hopko, while arguably a minority view, do not elevate Father Hopko to the status of "heretic".

My own Metropolitan Alfeyev, whom I love, shows openness to the concept of universal salvation, even though apocatastasis is a condemned heresy (unlike the example you mention regarding Hopko's teaching about the Theotokos). David Bentley Hart argues openly for universal salvation/reconciliation. Are these Orthodox teachers "heretics"? Is that a fair rubric for Metr. Alfeyev (and if so why isn't he removed)? Or rather is this a case where we should cite a caveat for otherwise excellent Orthodox teachers?

What makes teaching about apocatastasis a pious belief or
theologoumenon whereas what Fathers Hopko and Schmemann taught heresy?

It is curious to me that those who teach of universal salvation aren't addressed by their superiors or peers on the issue, considering it is condemned as a heresy.

I agree though. What Fr Thomas Hopko wrote about the Theotokos not having a painless birth is nowhere near the same level as those who teach beliefs that are condemned as heresy or are against dogma / official doctrine that the church teaches.

 

[gzt]

I think it's a bit misleading to refer to Fr Alexander Schmemann (as, for whatever reason, it's typically transliterated into English) as an ecumenist because the term is extraordinarily expansive - he's an ecumenist in the same sense Fr Georges Florovsky was, namely, that he went to some ecumenical gatherings as a representative. And griped about how pointless it was in his diaries.

Fr Thomas Hopko is of course quite right about evolution.

 

[gzt]

It is curious to me that those who teach of universal salvation aren't addressed by their superiors or peers on the issue, considering it is condemned as a heresy.

I agree though. What Fr Thomas Hopko wrote about the Theotokos not having a painless birth is nowhere near the same level as those who teach beliefs that are condemned as heresy or are against dogma / official doctrine that the church teaches.

First I would note that those are more academic books on a more academic imprint rather than books for general consumption from a popular press. Second is that you have to be very careful when saying "universalism" is a heresy because the exact parameters of that are kind of precise and, while I don't agree with the position of universalism as espoused by these people, they are quite convincingly able to argue that they don't fit under th condemnation of Origenism.

 

[All4Christ]

First I would note that those are more academic books on a more academic imprint rather than books for general consumption from a popular press. Second is that you have to be very careful when saying "universalism" is a heresy because the exact parameters of that are kind of precise and, while I don't agree with the position of universalism as espoused by these people, they are quite convincingly able to argue that they don't fit under th condemnation of Origenism.

Ok. I am not familiar with the Metropolitan you mentioned. However, some books I have read seem to be quite in contrast to accepted Orthodox teaching, and do not fit the Orthodox teaching of salvation. Certainly as my priest said, we cannot judge other people's salvation, and God may see that someone is searching for Him and have mercy on them. We can't count on that though, and we certainly shouldn't say that everyone seeking truth will likely be saved. Straight-out pluralism also is against the teachings of the Church. Certainly, there are seeds of truth beyond Orthodoxy and even beyond Christianity, and yes, the Holy Spirit blows where it wills. However, there are some definitive beliefs we are given. I'll look for the book I'm referencing and try to pull out the exact quote.

ETA: Multiple Orthodox priests have told me that the most we can say is that "we have a pious hope for all to be saved"

 

[gzt]

ETA: Multiple Orthodox priests have told me that the most we can say is that "we have a pious hope for all to be saved"

Sure, that's what Met Kallistos says.

Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All? | Origen | Free Will

 

[gzt]

Met Hilarion (Alfeyev) gets accused of a lot of things, including ecumenism (of course). Every Orthodox thinker who puts out a body of work gets criticism, some of it way harsher than deserved, some of it simply part of a reasonable conversation.

 

[ArmyMatt]

just take the good from the Hopkos and the Schmemanns of the world and leave the rest for the bishops. if for some reason you are worried about them, say a prayer.

and I would also say, the more you write or speak, the easier it is to be taken out of context, even if what you were saying is totally Orthodox

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think, especially nowadays, we often want to be the next Maximos the Confessor to save Orthodoxy, rather than patiently and prayerfully wait for God to raise him up. and to be fair, the ones on the Facebook group that I know are not that type

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

just take the good from the Hopkos and the Schmemanns of the world and leave the rest for the bishops. if for some reason you are worried about them, say a prayer.

and I would also say, the more you write or speak, the easier it is to be taken out of context, even if what you were saying is totally Orthodox

This is a really good point. Father Schmemann has written numerous books. Father Hopko has produced hours of broadcasts for AFR. Who of us would not say something silly or wrong with a microphone in front of us for hours on end?

 

[All4Christ]

and I would also say, the more you write or speak, the easier it is to be taken out of context, even if what you were saying is totally Orthodox

I'm sure I'd be saying quite a lot that isn't 100% right, no matter how hard I would try Most of us would err or speak unclearly in one way or another, when trying to teach in-depth Orthodox theology.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would like to get everyone's feedback on a thought I had when reading this post (and a few of the others).

Speaking as one who came into the Church late, and got a fair amount of my theology from reading and listening to podcasts, my concern is for myself and others like me.

I'm not interested in being a heresy-hunter or condemning anyone. I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that no one is infallible (we have that very example from the Apostles themselves). And I don't blame a person for such or respect them any less --- I don't disrespect the Apostles on that basis. I think it can help underscore our need for the rest of the Body, and the Holy Spirit -- maybe God planned it this way.

But it can take years, perhaps, depending upon who one studies, to really become aware of the nuances of what might not be truly Orthodox, or where some teachers may depart from Tradition. (I'm already second-guessing what I'm about to say, which is the point of my post, but I'm going to ask anyway. I hope not to be misunderstood in my motive though.

It occurs to me that such a list as you made, Rus, is valuable knowledge. And to further expand it, both on the good points (Scmenman good to read for gratefulness and joy?), as well as what tendencies to beware of in certain teachers, could really save confusion.

But I do want to pull back from the idea of widely criticizing. That bothers me, on some level. But as I said, the warnings could be valuable. What do you all think?

It is very easy, in a capacity as an authoritative teacher in the Church, to come close to or even cross lines into wrong teaching, which is what heresy is.
There are legitimate criticisms, and they must be assessed in degree. Not everything is black and white. Shmemann is flat-out a model of gratitude, the key to joy, for us. Hopko is a model of speaking to modern pluralist Americans who swallow truths more easily if they think the speaker doesn't sound dogmatically sure of them. (His mannerisms ("I don't know", "It seems to me", etc when speaking about definitive dogma) drive me crazy, but I get their effectiveness in the environment we live in today.)

It is possible to go too far in something. And usually, in my experience, it is in the direction of one of two equal and opposite errors. A person can, for example, say that "only Orthodox can be saved". Or they can take the opposite tack of ecumenism and say that it doesn't matter whether you are in the Orthodox Church or not.
Or they might teach that every word in the Bible has to be taken literally, that there is no metaphor or allegory, or the opposite error of saying that many or most miraculous events described are only metaphor or allegory.

Hopko was a thoroughgoing evolutionist. He believed that modern science, a result of modern education, produces truth about our origins that must be reconciled with patristic teaching, even to the point of belittling the latter. I still hope to write a criticism of his podcast on "the Slippery Slope", in which he was right about the specific case he defended, and wrong in denying and deriding the concept in general.

Shmemann was an ecumenist. He did believe in the Orthodox Church, but swung too far in the direction of "it doesn't matter".

Heck, I even found hints in Met Antony Bloom that he might have supported women's ordination, and more than hints in Met Kallistos Ware.

Such tend to be linchpins for "liberal" folk in the Church, and while they themselves did/do not teach such things as teachers like Fr Robert Arida have been trying to introduce (the legitimacy of homosexuality in the Church), their tendencies were influential in such directions.

I would stress the vital role Shmemann played in revitalizing the Orthodox Church in America, of turning it from a moribund club of isolationist immigrants to a thing that reaches out to Americans and fulfills "the Great Commission", and Hopko's continuation of that, combined with his down-to-earth relatability that Americans so desperately need, and let's face it, we really couldn't perceive Shmemann as American.

So there's no simple verdict. But overall, there is definitely much more good than bad, but you need to understand that they were "only human", and what exactly they went wrong in, even while being incredibly and deeply right about so many other things.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think the best way is to stick with the Fathers, hymns, prayers, Scripture, etc. that way when you come across something uniquely Hopko that falls in line with the Church, you run with it. for errors and speculation you simply say our Church does not teach that. and always try to make it about the teaching, and not about the man.

the Fr Hopko I knew is the man who patiently explained God's knowability to a bunch of college kids using a styrofoam cup. that is the kind of pastor I want to be.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think the best way is to stick with the Fathers, hymns, prayers, Scripture, etc. that way when you come across something uniquely Hopko that falls in line with the Church, you run with it. for errors and speculation you simply say our Church does not teach that. and always try to make it about the teaching, and not about the man.

the Fr Hopko I knew is the man who patiently explained God's knowability to a bunch of college kids using a styrofoam cup. that is the kind of pastor I want to be.

Right, where I hesitate is that I do NOT want to make it about the man. But from my end, it can take years to identify some of these things. I heard comments about "liturgical reforms" or innovations a few years ago, and I wasn't sure really what the changes were, from when, and such. There is really so much to absorb. I think I generally have a good handle on it, but I've put a few years in and sometimes I've managed to have very intense study (for a layperson) ... 6 or 8 or 16 hours a day. Still there are certainly things I'm not sure of and wouldn't recognize as not Traditional. And being surrounded by many sources that convincingly offer new things, well, I'm just wondering if there's a way to safeguard folks and make it a little easier. Especially with so many converting from other Christian traditions, it can be doubly hard to be sure of what we learned where.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you. Like I said, I'm really concerned about pointing at the teacher. That probably has the potential to do more harm than any (usually slight) errors in doctrine would do.

 

[ArmyMatt]

when it comes to that, just pray as you are doing your study, go to the sacraments, and God will give you the discernment

 

[~Anastasia~]

when it comes to that, just pray as you are doing your study, go to the sacraments, and God will give you the discernment

Good enough. I suppose that's worked so far, thanks be to God. Thank you for helping me sort through those thoughts.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Good enough. I suppose that's worked so far, thanks be to God. Thank you for helping me sort through those thoughts.

I think something hard for us Americans to keep in mind is that illumination and discernment come from Him, and not our own intellect or speculation